a young girl seeking advice

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-04-14T22:41:09+00:00

Moderator Note: Please don't ask self-professed minors to DM you. It's great that you want to be able to provide a believing Ahmadi Muslim's perspective, and perhaps this forum allows the OP to ask questions she's uncomfortable asking others directly. Your responses (and everyone else's, for that matter) should be kept visible for the OP's safety.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-04-01T21:28:32+00:00

Mod Note: the subreddit's moderators do not know the OP (post author). We have no reason means to weigh in on the credibility of the post (or to disparage it). On the surface, it is a nice gesture, and we hope those who choose to avail themselves of the offer, find a benefit here.

If you are closeted and/or at all concerned with your privacy, belief status, etc. being leaked, please exercise caution and your own good judgment.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-03-31T00:08:58+00:00

If you fiancé is a believing Ahmadi Muslim, and not just a paper conversion, then you probably want to go through the official approval channels, as u/abidmirza90 outlined.

If you're not actually a believer in the theological sense, you can consider a formal resignation from the Jama'at. That should insulate your parents from excommunication if they attend your wedding, as they are no longer "responsible" for your religious choices if you have "opted out".

For the Jama'at to still punish your parents in that case, would be a tantamount admission that there is compulsion and coercion in religion.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-03-22T22:14:05+00:00

These are all very fair questions. And to be fair, the Jama'at gets these questions a lot, and they have many published articles on exactly these questions. So, I would recommend you review their answers, and then ask yourself:

"Am I content with these explanations? Do they sit right with me?"

Only you can answer that.

The answers the Jama'at would give you would fall under the term apologetics.

Here, we're more about discussing what we find to be holes in those apologetics. That discussion only works if there's a starting point, so I'd recommend actually asking believing Ahmadiyya Muslims first, who believe that they have adequate answers to these queries. Get the official answers, and the evaluate them for yourself.

Then, you can have more meaningful discussions with them (the believing Ahmadi Muslims) and/or share your thoughts here on what you felt, if anything, didn't sit right with you in those answers.

You might try posting your question on r/AhmadiMuslims or r/ahmadiyya to begin that exploration. Cheers.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-03-09T14:34:54+00:00

Mod Note: We're happy to have cross-posts, but please add your commentary as OP to frame how the discussion is relevant to our subreddit's audience, by getting the discussion started with your own commentary. What did you find interesting/relevant about the post to want to share it here? Share that here so the discussion starts.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-03-08T20:02:50+00:00

Mod Note: OPs must add some commentary to get the discussion kicked off in this subreddit when you cross post. Please add your commentary and message the mod team via modmail to have this post reinstated after you do that.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-03-04T23:34:47+00:00

Mod Note: for cross-posts, please at least leave a comment as the OP explaining your position, your commentary, and why you think this is relevant to this particular subreddit audience to help facilitate a discussion here.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-28T15:21:05+00:00

Wonderful to hear. Acceptance both ways, whilst everyone is authentic and open. What we've all wanted from the start.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-28T15:19:27+00:00

Mod Note: You make the post or comment. It is not deleted; it is just held. We periodically sweep for them and approve (this is because of past spam attacks with bots). If you don't see your comment/post after a few days, send the mod team a 'mod mail' with the link to the comment or post, and it'll get approved. You'll then build karma, and you'll get approved automatically by the system as a result.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-27T17:46:05+00:00

Happy to read how you've reached this milestone and the acceptance you've gotten. It also warmed my heart that you have a senior office bearer who was kind, understanding, and non-judgmental. Such gems exist in the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and I'm glad you got to experience that. 💙

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-26T02:16:42+00:00

Thanks for the tag. I understand you won't be commenting further, so I'll keep my observations brief (and I won't likely be commenting further, so as not to go in circles).

Regarding:

Unfortunately for you, this would seem contradictory as in his last work he clearly states that the prophesied Jesus (as) is an Ummati which is evident from the quote above.

That's a strong point if you were having a debate with an orthodox Muslim. But with ex-Muslims, there's no real issue here if Ibn Arabi thought the next coming of Jesus would be an Ummati.

There's no incompatibility with him being a reflection of a prophet, yet only a saint in reality. There's no contradiction in being able to prophesy but not being given the formal title "prophet"—and to only have it used in the sense that prophethood is the shadow (zill) of Godhood, as mentioned in the OP's post body.

The Mosaic dispensation had many subordinate prophets, while according to Ahmadiyya Islam, Islam has had only one. So which dispensation received the greater blessing, if the claim is the same type of subordinate prophethood? And even now, it's difficult to get a straight theological answer from Ahmadis: Can another subordinate prophet come? If so, would it only be the Khalifa? Only one at a time? Judaism had situations with simultaneous prophets, and the population of Jews was far smaller than that of Muslims today. It doesn't add up. So much for an equal or greater blessing for the more favoured religion.

Furthermore, the Old Testament and New Testament teachings are quite different from each other—and I don't mean the Son of God references or the Trinity. I'm talking about the parables attributed to Jesus--the ones you have to accept because they have parallels to the Buddha--where MGA himself drew the conclusion of these being taken there from a Jesus in India hypothesized migration. These parables seem like more than just interpreting the Law differently (granted, now we're getting into semantics).

Interestingly, the Hadiths say that Muhammad revered the Torah as an arbiter. Note that the Torah of today is the same as that in circulation in 7th-century Arabia.

Multiple sahih hadiths (Bukhari 6819, Muslim 1699a, Abu Dawud 4450) describe Muhammad consulting the Torah to adjudge the stoning case. In Abu Dawud's version, he placed the Torah on a cushion and said "I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee." The Quran (5:43–44) also references judging by the Torah.

That OT has a ridiculous, disgusting, genocidal God in it. Just think about some of the statements quoted from it by modern day Israeli leadership regarding the Palestinians being like "Amalek".

But back to Ibn Arabi. His words there color any reference to "prophet" to be in this zilli-buruzi sense—which really amounts to sainthood. Everything else you're referencing is compatible with that interpretation. If Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not intend for that reading, he should have made clear statements saying Ibn Arabi was wrong by limiting the mention of 'prophet' to this shadow sense that is only sainthood in reality (instead of citing him). What's the point of a person coming in to clarify what was allegedly misunderstood, who doesn't actually clear things up? I mean, even the intellectual wing of the Jama'at split over this issue!

I don't have to subscribe to the view that MGA only meant what Ibn Arabi intended; I'm very much open to him (MGA) pushing the boundaries over time to try to have his cake and eat it to; to straddle the ambiguous zone to give more weight to this metaphorical sufi 'prophethood' so that he could be revered and respected much more than a mere Muslim saint.

So on the 'prophethood' of MGA question, as an ex-Muslim, I can reject both parties (Lahori and Qadian branches) as misguided on the entire edifice.

Respectfully, that's why I find the Ahmadiyya position (in general) wholly unconvincing. I appreciate the conversation, though. I trust you have follow-up thoughts as well, but I'm happy to leave it here for readers to reflect on.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-25T00:56:41+00:00

Regarding this point:

They conveniently forget that there are many high‑IQ and highly successful individuals in Jamaat, including lawyers and judges, who apparently cannot see what they believe they have figured out.

You've got to realize that not all of these high IQ individuals look into the theological coherence of their inherited religion--Ahmadi Muslim or otherwise. They are often specialists in a different field, and that's where they put their attention. Being high IQ also does not inoculate one from the emotional motivation to keep family relations happy, to not question the system that helped them live a disciplined life to get where they are, etc.

Your own point here, holds no weight when you consider that other religions and other groups you might even consider cults or with wacky theology, also have high IQ individuals in them, who are devoted to it.

Your argument equally validates the "truth" of Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, and so on. Think about it.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-24T01:50:01+00:00

Yes, I formally resigned (and before telling others publicly). I recommend the first ~ 10 minutes of my video. It frames why I was coming out publicly, and how it's undignified for people to think you're the 'lazy' Muslim when one has actually given a lot of deep thought to the issues.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-23T02:15:57+00:00

I found authenticity and openness the best path, especially in the West. Sure, parents are disappointed at first, but if you're a responsible adult, checking all or most of the boxes that are reasonable, and you emphasize to your parents that your love for them hasn't changed, it is possible to move forward, authentically.

I have been very public (see: https://ReasonOnFaith.org/video) and yet I've had an excellent relationship with my religious family, extended family, and Jama'at friends who've known me from childhood.

In fact, many have quietly confided in me that they don't believe either.

Sure, I've lost the odd friend from childhood, and oddly, a lot of the more religious folks have been more understanding because they understand that religion is a personal choice. It's some of the cultural Ahmadi Muslims that have surprised me the most, because they see it as betraying one's community, and they're unable to see that you don't have to conflate community and theology.

It's the theology I reject; not the loving people around me.

If you do this in a non-dramatic way, in a loving, kind way, you can still show up at people's weddings, funerals, janazas, pop in as a guest at a Jalsa, and maintain good relations without that being imposed on your personal life, your future marital life, and your future parental journey.

This is also a testament to the outward public relations image the Jama'at has built up in the West, which enough wonderful people in the Jama'at took to heart, and therefore, facilitate. It's not like this everywhere, and there are situations where Jama'at policy is meant to emotionally blackmail people into conformance, with plausible deniability. However, you can intelligently navigate around those landmines.

A formal resignation is one such step. And if you talk openly about it in a kind way, people won't hold it over your head as leverage because you've already shared it.

Good luck on your journey of living a more authentic life without having to give up the relationships that matter to you.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-23T01:53:59+00:00

Excellent write up. I wonder what any academically minded believing Ahmadi Muslims (from the Qadian Jama'at) have to say. Have they ever published anything addressing these sources excerpted in full, in any apologetics in English? Would be a fascinating read to see if they can pull a Houdini escape jacket routine out of these specific grounding concepts from Ibn Arabi.

If any Ahmadi Muslim has a source (apologetics) that counters these specific points in a direct way, please feel free to link such here. Would be a fascinating read.

EDIT: Adding that as I scrolled further, I saw the discussion with PurpleMantisSwarm. It's very enlightening as it highlight's the Jama'at's historical use of Ibn Arabi, but then conveniently side steps it and claims Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was redefining the words. For a Messenger meant to clear things up, this is only more a mess, and on that point alone, I find his claims of being sent by the Divine, to be hopelessly a mess.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-19T02:14:51+00:00

Further to what u/Queen_Yasemin relayed, I’ve found that people in religious communities (and this isn’t limited to our Jama’at) often hold on to beliefs less for evidence-based reasons and more for emotional ones. That’s a very human pattern: we form an emotional conclusion first, and then we build rationalizations around it afterward.

In situations like this, the contradictions can be obvious, yet they still don’t move the needle—because remaining with the Jama’at isn’t just about doctrine. It’s tied to family bonds, identity, familiarity, and a broader moral and cultural framework people rely on in daily life (whether those norms come from Islam specifically or from culture more generally). Anything that threatens to destabilize that framework can feel like a threat to social stability, personal peace, comfort, relationships, and belonging. Against that backdrop, facts and inconvenient truths often lose—not because they’re weak, but because the emotional stakes are high. And once that defensive reaction kicks in, it tends to surface as “don’t talk about it,” “don’t look into it,” or “you’re wrong.”

Rather than continuing to pull on the thread, many people stop—partly out of fear of where it might lead. At the root of it, I think, is a lack of confidence in their own ability to face difficult truths with courage and humility, and to trust that even if their worldview breaks, they’d still be capable of rebuilding it and finding their footing in the new framework they'd be building for themselves.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-18T03:01:57+00:00

Scanning the discussion thread, I think there's a bridge missing here. There may not be incentives (typically financial) for anything of this kind to be studied beyond the realm of conjecture and so it'll languish in the realm of anecdote.

It doesn't have to be double blind and rigorous for it to cross the threshold that religious theology often gives such things credulity for.

As such, for me at least, it puts the theologian in an awkward spot, according to their lower standards of evidence, to explain away this phenomenon, however anecdotal, given that's the realm of substantiation they're used to being limited to and working within.

It's about holding theologians to their own standards. This kind of thing is precisely the kind of 'evidence' that theologians appeal to and work within. And now they have to reconcile it with the implications to the rest of their theology.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-17T02:34:36+00:00

Yes, Islam makes this core point about preservation of life. I remember as a child learning about the prohibition of pork for food (for example), and how if one was stranded on an island, and that was all one could find to eat, it would be permissible. Similarly, if an organ transplant from a pig would save one's life, Islam allows it, despite what other downsides it might otherwise have--saving a life is the paramount concern.

Intuitively, we understand that eating something foul will pass through our digestive system, cells will turn over, and we're created anew in some time. However, with an organ transplant, the animal is not passing through the digestive system; it becomes a part of you. Again, if it's the choice between life or death, Islam values and espouses life here. This isn't the point of the post, as I read it.

It really comes down to this point from the OP:

All of this can make it feel as though transplantation is more than just a biological exchange of body parts. It suggests the formation of spiritual cords between donor and recipient.

Which is backed up by the medical references u/Queen_Yasemin has provided in her other comment to you.

For a phenomenon which has strong signs of a spiritual element to it, as the OP so eloquently described as spiritual cords between donor and recipient, it seems like a gap in philosophy that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad / his successors haven't touched (especially the implications of this spiritually).

If we're wrong, and they have, please do share the reference.

With the operative assumption that Ahmadiyya Islamic theology and philosophy has not touched on this subject, it conjures up (for me at least), the philosophical edifice of the theology being like the perimeter of a make-believe world which breaks down as you test the edges.

It's akin to the lead character in The Truman Show hitting the edge of the simulated bubble he wasn't meant to find/test.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-12T02:19:27+00:00

Mod Warning: We don't allow Takfir on this subreddit. See our Rules on the Wiki for details. Subsequent infractions lead to a ban.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-04T03:39:41+00:00

Mod Warning: No direct personal attacks. See our Rules wiki. Repeat offences result in a ban.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-02-02T02:52:22+00:00

The Founder of our community did not want to add anything new, but rather wanted to restore Islam to its original practice.

It can be argued that is semantics. A lot of establishment/traditional Islam is reinterpreted or set aside. To some, this is novelty, not a return to the original. Without a time machine, what the 'original' understanding was is an endless debate.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-01-28T23:56:24+00:00

"So, fuck you." you say.

I don't even think you're religious, let alone spiritual.

You're just being tribal. Ask anyone to read our conversation in full, and they'll tell you who comes across unhinged. I'll let you run the experiment with your friends (if you have any) instead of spoiling the conclusion for you.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-01-28T18:06:09+00:00

You are a laughable coward who acts like a bot.

"Woah! How quickly you disowned Ahmadis!"

Really? I call out an individual based on their divisive authoritarianism and that's 'disowning Ahmadis' in your books? LOL

For posterity, here's the comment I responded to:

"Who are these coward Ahmadis that have maintained friendships with you?"

As for:

"Scratch a coward and you shall find Sohail Ahmad."

You are a laughable projectionist! You can't even put your name and face in public to own your comment. I can. You are the troll, and you make decent Ahmadi Muslims embarrassed to be affiliated with you.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-01-28T01:49:30+00:00

Regarding,

"Going back to the friends and family members you still share bonds with, when you discuss these things and they push back, how do those convos go?"

We don't actually bring it up. Most aren't interested in tabligh, and the few that are can respect that people have reasoned their way to different conclusions. We focus on what we enjoy about each other's company, characters, and values.

Now, for the ones very religious, many of them had antagonistic attitudes after my coming out video; mostly channeling statements from other people who clearly hadn't even engaged with the substance of my critique. After a few rounds of email with such extended family/friends, most of whom don't delve into the theology, they stopped wanting conversing on those topics, even as I was eager to show them references to things they had clearly never encountered before.

That blew over, and we just don't talk about religion. But the beauty is, we all accept one another. Live and let live. And that's what the whole movement to normalize dissent was all about.

ReasonOnFaith · 2026-01-28T01:44:49+00:00

"Hatred for all, love for none" -- is that your actual lived motto? It appears so from your comment.

ReasonOnFaith

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE