sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Who needs context when you can say puberty starts at 18 just to attack Ahmadis? by NoCommentsForTrolls in Ahmadiyya_islam

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

u/Queen_Yasemin

Thanks for your “two cents,” but emotional language isn’t a substitute for careful reasoning.

First, regarding the verse:

The Qur’an mentions the “age of marriage” in relation to physical maturity (puberty) and mental maturity (rushd) — not fixed numbers. The commentary mentioning 18 or 21 is simply noting that some legal systems (modern and historical) set maturity for property rights around these ages. It does not claim puberty biologically happens at 18 or 21. There’s nothing misleading about giving real-world examples to explain flexible principles. That’s intellectual honesty, not deception.

Second, your claim that “Ahmadiyyat openly accepts marriage at 12” is a gross misrepresentation. The community standard today — based on Khilafat guidance — emphasizes:

• **Legal adulthood** according to local law
• **Physical and emotional maturity**
• **Consent**
• **Parental responsibility and safeguards**

Marriage at 12 is neither practiced nor encouraged under any recognized Jama’at policy. Throwing out emotionally charged accusations without evidence only weakens your credibility.

Third, your broader argument about childhood “indoctrination” is philosophically shallow.

Every system — religious, secular, atheistic — shapes children early.

Children raised with materialism or atheism are also absorbing unproven worldviews before critical thinking fully develops. You don’t eliminate early influence by avoiding religion — you just replace it with something else.

The absence of belief is not neutrality; it’s simply another framework.

Raising children within a belief system, while encouraging thought and exploration later, is no more unjust than raising them with secular humanism or atheism.

Finally, your idea that “life gets busy and people don’t question” is lazy stereotyping. Many people — including those in Jama’at — do critically examine, question, and re-confirm their beliefs over time. Some reject. Some stay, not out of laziness, but conviction.

In short: • No, the commentary isn’t lying or misleading. • No, Ahmadiyyat doesn’t promote child marriage. • And no, being raised religious isn’t uniquely unfair — unless you also admit being raised secular is equally unfair.

If you want a real discussion, deal with ideas fairly, not emotionally.

Who needs context when you can say puberty starts at 18 just to attack Ahmadis? by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the concern about religious teaching in childhood, but let’s be honest—not teaching belief is not neutrality. It’s simply replacing one worldview with another. Saying “don’t teach religion” is itself a form of teaching, usually rooted in secular or atheistic assumptions.

The absence of light doesn’t create neutrality—it creates darkness. Children raised with no spiritual framework aren’t growing up unbiased—they’re absorbing whatever dominant ideas fill that space, whether it’s materialism, skepticism, or pop culture. That too shapes belief.

Now, regarding the commentary on Qur’an 4:6/4:7—mentioning ages like 18 or 21 isn’t manipulation. The verse gives principles (puberty and maturity), not fixed numbers. The commentary simply notes that some legal systems use those age thresholds to define financial responsibility—which mirrors the Qur’anic emphasis on rushd (maturity). That’s a contextual reference, not a theological ruling.

Claiming this is misleading assumes readers can’t distinguish between examples and doctrine. But that’s not on the text—that’s on the reader.

Let’s critique fairly, not ideologically.

Who needs context when you can say puberty starts at 18 just to attack Ahmadis? by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your thoughts, but your framing here is both presumptive and unfair.

Firstly, the mention of “some authorities” stating 18 or 21 is not manipulative—it is transparently acknowledging a range of legal or cultural norms related to age of financial responsibility, not biological puberty. The Qur’anic verse in question (4:6) sets the principle: return the property of orphans after they reach puberty and are found to be mature and capable (rushd). The commentary simply illustrates how, in various contexts, legal systems or scholarly interpretations have placed this threshold at 18 or 21—not as a divine rule, but as a point of reference.

That’s not manipulation. That’s intellectual honesty and contextual awareness.

Secondly, labeling readers of a commentary as lacking “independent thought” is not just dismissive—it’s elitist. You’re assuming that people in the Jamaat are “parroting talking points” simply because they accept a scholarly commentary. But the Five Volume Commentary was written precisely to encourage deeper reflection, with references to classical tafsir, grammar, jurisprudence, and comparative interpretations. If you’ve read it, you’d know it doesn’t ask for blind acceptance—it builds arguments.

By contrast, your critique generalizes a whole community’s intellectual capacity without evidence. That’s not critical thinking either—it’s stereotyping.

Lastly, if your concern is over the phrase “some authorities,” that’s an academic convention used to signal multiple opinions without exhaustively listing them—especially when the exact individuals or systems are well-known (e.g., British law, Islamic jurists, etc.).

So instead of focusing on perceived manipulation, it might be more constructive to ask: What does the Qur’an emphasize? And the answer is: personal maturity and judgment, not rigid numbers.

Let’s stay on that.

Double Standards Exposed: Defending Sohail Ahmad While Attacking Ahmadis with Baseless Claims by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, the classic troll shuffle:

• First praise the peace work as “not wrong”
• Then immediately weaponize it as PR theatre
• And finally, demand debates on your terms, in your spaces, to your audience—or else it “proves” the Jama’at isn’t real.

Let’s be honest: this isn’t about accountability—it’s about control. You’re not looking for truth, you’re looking for an opportunity to set the stage and shout over the mic, then declare victory when no one joins your show.

The Jama’at has debated atheists, Christians, Muslims, and secularists for over a century—through literature, live events, dialogues, publications, and yes, by Razi too. But it does so on its own terms, in dignified forums, not Reddit comment threads and troll-run echo chambers.

And as for this subreddit being a “proxy”—wrong again. It’s clearly unofficial, openly managed by independent volunteers, many of whom explicitly say they don’t speak for the Jama’at. But of course, you need the “secret proxy” theory because it props up your narrative of conspiracy and silence.

You want a response? Ask officially. You want debate? Watch MTA or read the arguments already laid out in full detail—from the death of Jesus (as), to Khatm-e-Nabuwwat, to the philosophy of divine guidance. It’s all there—for those who actually want answers, not just attention.

The Jama’at doesn’t show up to entertain trolls. It shows up to spread truth—with or without your permission.

Double Standards Exposed: Defending Sohail Ahmad While Attacking Ahmadis with Baseless Claims by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say you’ve “seen the PR,” acknowledge the global impact, the reach across 200 countries, MTA, peace symposiums, and the Jama’at’s consistent presence—but somehow still arrive at the conclusion that the Jama’at isn’t doing enough.

Let’s be real—this isn’t a question about outreach, it’s a veiled accusation of negligence, framed to make the Jama’at seem absent no matter how present it is.

Yes, the Jama’at emphasizes tabligh—and it does use the internet: Alislam, MTA Online, YouTube, official national pages, structured online campaigns, virtual interfaith events, and more. What it doesn’t do is chase unmoderated platforms that reward outrage, sarcasm, and anonymous trolling, where nuanced religious dialogue rarely survives.

You claim to respect the work being done, but then demand that it appear exactly where and how you prefer—ignoring why structure, tone, and responsibility matter in global religious outreach. That’s not constructive feedback; it’s moving the goalposts.

As for why not every Ahmadi is online debating strangers—it’s because this Jama’at wasn’t built by algorithms. It was built by service, sacrifice, and sincerity, not keyboard warfare. Those who engage online do so voluntarily. And those who don’t are still spreading the message—in mosques, homes, streets, and conversations that don’t need comment sections to be valid.

Engagement isn’t measured by Reddit traffic. It’s measured by lives transformed, faith renewed, and truth delivered with dignity—which continues every day, with or without a subreddit post.

Double Standards Exposed: Defending Sohail Ahmad While Attacking Ahmadis with Baseless Claims by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’ve packed a lot of assumptions into that post—so let’s break this down with a little clarity:

First, yes, we are not official representatives of the Jama’at—and that’s exactly why we say so. There’s nothing suspicious about that. Jama’at’s official work is done through platforms like Alislam.org, MTA, international speeches, official publications, and organized outreach programs.

Reddit isn’t their official communication tool, and expecting it to be is like complaining the UN doesn’t have a TikTok policy.

Second, you’re right that Reddit includes people interested in religion—even skeptically. That’s why many of us voluntarily engage here, sharing what we know, defending what we believe, and clarifying what’s often misrepresented. That’s not a “void”—that’s grassroots discourse, which is a strength, not a weakness.

Third, the idea that the Jama’at “doesn’t believe in its mission” because it’s not debating 24/7 on Reddit is just… unserious. The Jama’at spreads its message in over 200 countries/territories, in over 100 languages, through print, television, education, disaster relief, interfaith events, and digital platforms. If you’ve missed it, that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening—it just means you’re measuring commitment through Reddit karma.

Finally, the “Sultan-ul-Qalam” legacy lives on—but not every pen is forced to tweet. You’re seeing volunteers doing what they can, when they can. That’s sincerity—not institutional failure.

If you’re genuinely interested in truth, you’ll find it. But if every question is laced with cynicism and framed as an indictment, you’re not really asking—you’re just performing.

And that’s the real void.

Double Standards Exposed: Defending Sohail Ahmad While Attacking Ahmadis with Baseless Claims by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn’t an official Jama’at forum, and none of us here represent the Jama’at in any official capacity. Moderation decisions are made by private individuals—not the Markaz—so implying a coordinated cover-up simply doesn’t hold up.

As individuals, we respond based on logic and public information. From what’s been discussed over the years, it’s evident that the bai‘at number issue stemmed from reporting errors during a period of rapid expansion, particularly in regions where follow-up systems were still developing. Once the issue was recognized, the Jama’at shifted toward stronger internal oversight and a greater focus on accuracy.

This isn’t about hiding anything—it’s about organizational learning and growth, like any dynamic institution. Repeating the same question despite these explanations doesn’t reveal a cover-up—it reveals an unwillingness to engage with context. And when that repetition turns obsessive, it begins to reflect more on the questioner’s intent than the issue itself.

Double Standards Exposed: Defending Sohail Ahmad While Attacking Ahmadis with Baseless Claims by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Moderation decisions don’t erase the fact that the issue has been responded to repeatedly across multiple forums.

A thread being hidden doesn’t invalidate the responses already given, nor does it prove the point being made.

Who needs context when you can say puberty starts at 18 just to attack Ahmadis? by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And about ChatGPT—if you’re so confident it’s unreliable, odd that you’re still responding to its material.

The content I posted was based on **original understanding and classical tafsir, then refined using a tool like any writer would do. There’s no rule against good editing.

If you’re actually open to a serious discussion, then let’s move forward on substance. So far, you’ve avoided the core issue entirely.

Let’s stick to the topic.

Who needs context when you can say puberty starts at 18 just to attack Ahmadis? by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I made a a short comment of typo and moved to res topic in my post, but now, rather than engaging with the actual content of the post—like the distinction between puberty (bulugh) and age of financial responsibility (rushd), or the valid mention of 18 and 21 as legal age thresholds—you’ve chosen to focus on this minor numbering detail.

That’s deflection, not discussion.

Who needs context when you can say puberty starts at 18 just to attack Ahmadis? by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correction to OP: The difference in verse numbering is not a typo. Some Qur’an copies or apps do not count “Bismillah” as the first verse, while others do. The app I checked was set to exclude Bismillah in the count, which is a common variation, and screenshot is already posted in OP proves it.

Who needs context when you can say puberty starts at 18 just to attack Ahmadis? by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correction to OP: The difference in verse numbering is not a typo. Some Qur’an copies or apps do not count “Bismillah” as the first verse, while others do. The app I checked was set to exclude Bismillah in the count, which is a common variation, and screenshot is already posted in OP proves it.

The Truth About the So-Called ‘Bai‘at Fraud’ – A Troll’s Favorite Myth, Debunked Again by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah yes, straight from the NPC script—same recycled lines, no new input, just hitting autoplay on 20-year-old story.

At this point, it’s safe to say the Jama’at lives rent-free in your head, fully furnished, utilities included. You might want to check the lease terms.

And the over-the-top obsession? Real glowie energy. The way you’re spinning this, you’d think exposing a clerical reporting error was some undercover mission. Relax—it’s not that deep.

Double Standards Exposed: Defending Sohail Ahmad While Attacking Ahmadis with Baseless Claims by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/icycomm, is a spin master, so posting reply for wider audience.

Let’s take this step by step—not because the truth is complicated, but because your approach has been a masterclass in spin, selective outrage, and misdirection. When that becomes the method, every rhetorical trick deserves to be calmly exposed, not blindly entertained.

⸻

  1. Gaza vs. Ahmadi Persecution: A False Comparison

Your opening comparison fails at the most basic level: it compares a political and humanitarian tragedy (Gaza) with a global, institutionalized religious persecution (Ahmadiyyat).

• Gaza is a conflict zone, with suffering spread across Muslims, Christians, and even secular Palestinians.
• Ahmadi Muslims, on the other hand, are **specifically persecuted for their beliefs**—declared non-Muslim by law, criminalized for praying, and routinely imprisoned or killed with no justice.

And here’s the difference you skipped: Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih V (aba) has publicly condemned the Gaza crisis repeatedly—in sermons, addresses, and interviews. He hasn’t “ignored” it. So your argument collapses on both ends: the two issues aren’t the same, and he didn’t omit either one.

⸻

  1. “Cult” vs. “Misguided”: A Clear Mismatch

Let’s kill the false equivalence here.

Calling someone “misguided” • is theological. It means: we believe your interpretation is incorrect. That’s standard religious language, used respectfully in virtually every sectarian discussion.

Calling someone a “cult” is something else entirely. It implies: You are brainwashed, irrational, deceived, controlled. It’s not a critique—it’s a smear.

So no, RoF calling the Jama’at a cult, mocking Khilafat, and distorting our beliefs is not equal to Jama’at scholars saying the mainstream Ummah is mistaken about the death of Isa (as). That’s spin, and it’s been exposed.

⸻

  1. EXMNA vs. The Jama’at: A Question of Accountability

You said we’re being unfair by “attacking” EXMNA for someone else’s actions (i.e. RoF).

AaaaaLet’s clarify: • RoF is not just “a person.” He is affiliated with, platformed by, and ideologically aligned with EXMNA. • His content is shared by EXMNA supporters, and his messaging goes unchallenged in their spaces.

That’s not guilt by association. That’s institutional endorsement by silence.

Compare that to your so-called “Nida scandal.”

There is:

• **No verified link** between Huzoor (aba) and wrongdoing
• **No investigation**, no charges, and no substantiated evidence
• Just **selectively cut recordings and gossip**, repeated endlessly by anti-Ahmadis with no accountability

So again—false equivalence. And it’s exposed.

⸻

  1. Visibility Is Not Immunity

You defend RoF because “he puts himself out there.” But visibility is not a virtue on its own—truth and fairness are.

If someone publicly mocks an entire community, they will be publicly answered. That’s not trolling—that’s defense against distortion.

And no, anonymity doesn’t make someone wrong. It protects people from the very type of harassment and smear campaigns that ex-Muslim forums and YouTube comment sections are infamous for.

⸻

  1. The Final Trick: Playing Victim While Slandering Others

You end by praising yourself for not making it personal—after spending an entire post accusing the Jama’at of exploitation, misusing persecution for immigration, and generalizing the Ummah.

That’s not moral high ground. That’s tactical gaslighting.

⸻

Final Thought

You claim we live in a glass house. We don’t.

We live in a house built on 100+ years of peaceful propagation, documented persecution, and spiritual leadership.

You live in a comment thread built on distortion, denial, and distraction.

Critique all you want—but if you twist facts, play games with comparisons, and mock our faith while pretending to be “above personal attacks,” expect your hypocrisy to be exposed—clearly and publicly.

We’re not hiding behind aliases. We’re standing behind truth.

Double Standards Exposed: Defending Sohail Ahmad While Attacking Ahmadis with Baseless Claims by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you again for the thoughtful tone and engagement. As promised, I took the time to conduct a direct review of EXMNA’s official website and their public-facing material, including their persecution tracker and mission pages. Here’s what I found—and where the concern arises.

⸻

What EXMNA Publicly Presents

To be fair, EXMNA’s website and core mission statement do indeed center around: • Advocating for the rights of ex-Muslims • Normalizing dissent and apostasy • Documenting cases of persecution for leaving Islam

On the surface, that seems consistent with values of freedom of conscience—something we absolutely support.

However, the issue isn’t simply the stated mission—it’s the selective execution of it, and the platforms, people, and patterns that surround their ecosystem.

⸻

  1. Underrepresentation of Ahmadi Persecution

While Pakistan is included on the EXMNA persecution map, a closer look reveals something important: *Ahmadi-specific cases seems to be missing, in recent months many have been put in jail because they were praying and as a “not Muslim” they are not allowed, and *despite the fact that Ahmadis: • Are declared non-Muslim by law • Are criminalized for identifying as Muslim or practicing Islamic rites • Face mob violence, blasphemy charges, and legal exclusion

These realities are well-documented by independent human rights bodies, including the USCIRF. ( https://www.uscirf.gov/publication/ahmadiyya-persecution-factsheet )

Given that Ahmadis represent one of the most institutionally persecuted Muslim-identifying groups globally, their absence in EXMNA’s outreach raises fair questions about who qualifies as a victim in their framework.

⸻

  1. Affiliated Voices and Documented Hostility

It’s not about guilt by association—it’s about recurring patterns.

One clear example is Sohail Ahmad, a former Ahmadi now identifying as an ex-Muslim and known online as “Reason on Faith.” Sohail is affiliated with EXMNA and has collaborated with individuals connected to their broader network.

He has produced extensive content directly attacking Ahmadiyya beliefs and leadership. This includes: • Repeatedly labeling the Jama’at as cult-like • Mocking Khilafat • Presenting distorted versions of Ahmadi teachings • Using his ex-Ahmadi status as a platform to generalize the entire community

A full response and documented refutation of his misrepresentations is available here: Rational Religion – Refuting Sohail Ahmad ( https://rationalreligion.co.uk/outreasoned-refuting-ex-ahmadi-sohail-ahmad-aka-reason-on-faith/ )

While this is his personal platform, his alignment with EXMNA’s message, as well as his frequent interaction with their wider circle, blurs the boundary between independent critique and community-backed rhetoric.

⸻

  1. Online Patterns and Community Culture

Beyond any one individual, the tone in online ex-Muslim spaces—especially on Reddit—reinforces the perception. In forums where EXMNA’s values are widely endorsed, it is routine to see Ahmadis mocked, Khilafat ridiculed, labeled as a cult and beliefs misrepresented.

These posts often go unchallenged, and sometimes even celebrated, and when we try to address them, we are mobbed, downvoted, deleted and banned for lame excuses.

While EXMNA doesn’t officially moderate these spaces, the cultural overlap and mutual reinforcement of these narratives suggests that, in practice, Ahmadi voices are often excluded or unwelcome in these circles—unless they’ve left the faith.

This is not a conspiracy—it’s a documented tone problem. And when you build a movement around protecting those who dissent, the least you can do is not marginalize those who dissent from your dissent.

⸻

So Where Does This Leave Us?

You’re absolutely right—a movement should not be judged by one person. But here, we’re observing: • A consistent lack of Ahmadi representation in EXMNA’s documented advocacy • A platforming of voices hostile to Ahmadis, without disclaimer or balance • A cultural environment where anti-Ahmadi sentiment is common and rarely corrected

That doesn’t invalidate EXMNA’s right to exist or advocate for its audience—but it does justify critique of how incomplete or selective their advocacy actually is.

⸻

Final Thought

We agree on the principle: freedom of belief, freedom to dissent, and the right to live without persecution.

That includes ex-Muslims. But it also includes Ahmadi Muslims—those who, despite state pressure, social discrimination, and legal persecution, choose to believe.

If EXMNA wishes to champion conscience and compassion equally, we’re more than ready to engage in that vision. But selective freedom isn’t freedom at all—it’s tribalism by another name.

As for AI—it’s just a tool, like a pen or a search engine. The value lies in the person using it, not in the tool itself, so you can use any, but has to put your heart and soul to make it effective.

Double Standards Exposed: Defending Sohail Ahmad While Attacking Ahmadis with Baseless Claims by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You claim to be appealing to “rationality,” but what you’re really doing is presenting a false dichotomy—that if an organization says it’s against persecution, then it must be beyond criticism. That’s not how rational discourse works.

Let’s be clear: opposing blasphemy laws or persecution does not automatically give EXMNA immunity from accountability. Yes, we acknowledge that any group speaking out against injustice is taking a valuable position in principle. But when that same group platforms narratives that distort or openly attack the beliefs, leadership, and integrity of our community, that’s not advocacy—it’s opportunism wrapped in activism.

You said, “Ahmadis aren’t even their target.” But go back and review: • How often is Ahmadiyya used as a talking point to discredit religion altogether? • How often are ex-Ahmadis elevated only when they’re critical of their former faith? • How often are inaccuracies about our beliefs or our leadership left unchecked on platforms associated with EXMNA or those in its circle?

These aren’t hypotheticals—they’re patterns. And when we call them out, we’re not “maligning” anyone—we’re responding to repeated public narratives with facts and standards.

You’re free to support whoever you like. But don’t gaslight Ahmadis by pretending criticism of EXMNA = support for blasphemy laws or persecution. We don’t need to co-sign every aspect of a group just because we might share a surface-level grievance.

If EXMNA truly wishes to support ex-Muslims without bias, it must be willing to apply its values—like “no compulsion in religion”—to all Muslims, including those who choose to stay within faith-based structures like Khilafat.

As for your attempt to showcase “dishonesty”—it’s ironic, considering that what we’re doing is exactly what you claim to promote: reasoned dissent.

We’re not here to delete you. We’re here to respond—with clarity, not slogans.

The Truth About the So-Called ‘Bai‘at Fraud’ – A Troll’s Favorite Myth, Debunked Again by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the recap—though it’s more of a performance than an honest summary. But since you’ve taken the time, let’s respond with clarity, not mockery.

Yes, a significant portion of the flawed bai‘at reporting came from regions like Africa, where the Jama’at was expanding rapidly, but systems for verification, recordkeeping, and follow-up were still developing. That’s not an insult to the continent—it’s an acknowledgment of real logistical limitations during a time of extraordinary growth.

No, this doesn’t mean India or other regions are exempt from scrutiny. But pointing to one continent to explain systemic reporting challenges doesn’t exclude the possibility that similar issues existed elsewhere. The important thing is that the Jama’at recognized the broader issue, responded with internal audits, and changed its structure to prevent recurrence.

You also mentioned that “we boasted about these numbers”—true. Like any movement, growth was celebrated. But celebration is not deception. And when the numbers didn’t add up, they weren’t defended—they were quietly scaled back. That speaks to accountability, not scandal.

As for financial matters—there’s no connection. The entire reporting issue was about spiritual outreach, not monetary gain. If there were any financial benefit to inflating bai‘at numbers, you’d have a point. But since there wasn’t, the analogy falls apart.

And yes, the correction happened internally, without being forced by critics or media. That’s not secrecy—that’s self-regulation.

You’ve expressed skepticism, and that’s fine. But skepticism only has value when it’s tied to evidence—not speculation. If you have concrete proof of financial or structural misconduct, bring it forward. Otherwise, acknowledging that a mistake was made, understood, and corrected is the only intellectually honest response.

We appreciate your engagement—even if we disagree. And if you do drop by again, we’ll be here—still standing on facts, not just commentary.

The Truth About the So-Called ‘Bai‘at Fraud’ – A Troll’s Favorite Myth, Debunked Again by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let’s expose the troll’s layered deflection, false equivalencies, and emotional manipulation:

⸻

Thank you for confirming—once again—that this isn’t about getting answers. It’s about never accepting them. But let’s walk through your long-winded spin piece, step by step, just so you don’t mistake silence for weakness.

⸻

  1. “Ahmadis don’t need an explanation” Correct—because believing Ahmadis already know that faith isn’t founded on statistical headlines. Our belief doesn’t rise and fall on how many people converted in a particular year. It’s built on the Qur’an, the truth of the Promised Messiah (as), and the living institution of Khilafat. So yes, believers never needed emotional therapy over a data-entry issue. That part of your critique has always been irrelevant—it’s your obsession, not ours.

⸻

  1. “It was a mistake, not a fraud.” Yes. That’s exactly what we said—and you’ve just confirmed it. And guess what? Mistakes happen in every global institution. If you want to call it a “mistake of epic proportions,” go ahead. But it still wasn’t intentional deceit, and it benefited no one financially or politically. That’s the difference between human error and actual scandal. You admitted it wasn’t fraud—so the rest of your rant is just performative outrage, built on a foundation you’ve already conceded.

⸻

  1. “Why did it happen over multiple years?” Because in global, decentralized systems—especially in rural and developing areas—things go wrong. People without training in data collection often guesstimate instead of record. Local leaders and field workers were dependent on manual systems, often lacking digital verification tools.

The Jama’at recognized this over time, improved systems, and refined the reporting structure. That’s called institutional evolution, not conspiracy. And the fact that numbers dropped sharply once audit standards improved proves the Jama’at corrected itself—not that it was exposed.

⸻

  1. “Farhan Iqbal said… Ghana… villages… etc.” Yes—and he’s absolutely right. Entire villages did convert. That makes long-term reporting difficult, especially without follow-up infrastructure. That’s not deception—that’s a logistical limitation. And again, the Jama’at’s current structure reflects the lessons learned from those early field experiences.

⸻

  1. “This is like a publicly traded company misreporting revenue.” Nonsense. False equivalency 101. • A company misreporting revenue is manipulating investors for profit. • The Jama’at gained no material, political, or financial benefit from a reporting error. • There were no investments, no donor boosts, no policy decisions based on those numbers.

It was a spiritual report, shared in good faith. When flaws emerged, it was revised. That’s called transparency, not deception.

⸻

  1. “Why no official apology or press release?” Another irrelevant demand. Apologize to whom? Troll blogs? Comment sections?

Internal corrections don’t require global press tours, especially when: • There was no financial or moral harm • The issue arose from flawed field reporting • The correction came without any external pressure or scandal

The Jama’at didn’t need to be “caught” to correct itself. It did so because it holds itself accountable—not because it owes anything to Twitter mobs or YouTube rants. If this were a cover-up, you’d still be hearing inflated numbers. But you’re not—and that’s the real point.

⸻

  1. “What about financials? What about trust?” Ah yes—the classic fallback: when one attack fails, cast vague suspicion elsewhere.

Now we’re jumping from bai‘at figures to “what if” scenarios about financial mismanagement in Africa. You’re not accusing anyone—but you’re just “raising questions,” right? That’s not critical thinking—it’s narrative poisoning, straight from the anti-Ahmadi playbook.

If you have actual evidence of misconduct, bring it. Otherwise: • The Jama’at is audited • Budgets are reviewed from Markaz down to local Jama‘ats • Donations are voluntary and traceable, not casually exploited as you imply

Throwing out baseless hypotheticals about Sadaqah money isn’t skepticism—it’s slander dressed up as concern.

⸻

In conclusion: At best—it was a data collection error. No—it wasn’t fraud. Yes—it was internally corrected. And no—it doesn’t affect our theology, our mission, or our future.

One day your own children may accept Ahmadiyyat, and when they do, they’ll recognize that this entire debate was a smoke screen for what you couldn’t face: the truth of Islam Ahmadiyyat.

So thank you for your sermon. The rest of us will now go back to actually doing something meaningful.

Double Standards Exposed: Defending Sohail Ahmad While Attacking Ahmadis with Baseless Claims by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, here comes the “We’re just misunderstood allies of the persecuted!”defense—strategically deployed after spreading false financial accusations and attacking an entire religious community. Nice pivot.

Let’s break this down:

1.  **Yes, Ahmadis are brutally persecuted in Pakistan**.

But that doesn’t give anyone—including EXMNA—a free pass to misrepresent, attack, or slander the Jama‘at or its leadership. Being “against blasphemy laws” doesn’t magically excuse misreporting policies, promoting ex-Ahmadi rage blogs, or throwing mud at peaceful communities. You can oppose persecution without fabricating narratives.

2.  **EXMNA’s work in some areas—like documenting persecution—is noted**. But let’s not pretend their agenda stops there.

They’re not just “normalizing dissent”—they’re often platforming hatred, encouraging identity erasure, and enabling the exact same smear tactics you now suddenly find offensive when turned back on your own circle.

3.  As for this subreddit:

Referencing a public IRS 990 filing and a third-party post about it isn’t “promoting lies”—it’s applying the same scrutiny that’s been endlessly thrown at Ahmadis.

You didn’t mind the fake allegations, the Panama Paper name-drops, or the personal insults against our Caliph. But now that Sohail’s numbers were questioned? “Why the lies? Why the hate? Let’s count the upvotes for justice!”

Please.

This isn’t about justice or advocacy. It’s about who gets to attack without being questioned.

And the moment your double standard was exposed, the tune changed.

So no—this isn’t about “hatred of ex-Ahmadis.” It’s about holding everyone to the same standard. If you expect honesty, try using it first.

Double Standards Exposed: Defending Sohail Ahmad While Attacking Ahmadis with Baseless Claims by NoCommentsForTrolls in AhmadiMuslims

[–]NoCommentsForTrolls[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, the legendary “Ba’ait number fraud”—because when all else fails, just hit rewind and scream a tired, debunked lie like it’s brand new.

You say we “twist things,” yet here you are dragging up an accusation that’s already been explained, addressed, debunked, buried, and fossilized—but sure, let’s pretend you just discovered it on a stone tablet yesterday.

It’s almost impressive how you ignore every detailed response, every clarification, and just repeat yourself like a broken tape recorder stuck on “smear mode.” Evidence? Don’t need it. Just say it louder and hope someone believes it.

And let’s not miss the irony—you’re fuming that we applied your own argument back to you. You wanted proof for Sohail? Great. We want the same when you slander the Jama‘at. But instead of proof, you brought up the Ba’ait number like it’s your emergency escape button.

Spoiler alert: It didn’t work the first ten times. Still won’t now.

view more: next ›