It’s simple, I analyzed as to who was a liar between Muhammad Ali or Mahmud Ahmad. Mahmud Ahmad was the liar.

MGAQ didn’t sanction for khilafat in “The Will”, he wrote that the anjuman was collectively the khalifa-tul-masih. Noorudin wrote the same! I can give references as needed.

I read and read and read, this was in my early 20’s. I am now 27. I left at 25, just two years ago. Mahmud Ahmad needed to secure the khilafah, he was broke, his family didn’t have too much money, they were living of off a stipend from the anjuman.

Mahmud needed MGAQ to be a prophet, if MGAQ was a prophet then a system of khilafah could be established. Muhammad Ali wrote in 1909 that khilafah was not neccessary! The wife of MGAQ and her brothers and her father stepped in, the rest is history.

Almost 100 years later, the khilafah has stayed in the family of MGAQ. The 5th khalifa isn’t qualified to give a speech at a 5th grade level, yet he was chosen as khalifa, this proves that this system of khalifah is corrupt, and it was built on a lie.

You see Mahmud Ahmad forged a lie and claimed that MGAQ was a “real prophet”, he did this just to get rich. But, MGAQ had forged a lie and claimed to be Esa ibn Maryam, like father like son. Muhammad Ali was a bystander, guilty by association.


I never accepted the LAM, Next I started reading about Islam, I realized that Islam was beautiful. Then I read the controversial writings of MGAQ, Farhan explained to me as to the beauties of Islam. I read his book, I watched Shahid’s videos. I LEFT like a bat outta hell.

I quickly realized that MGAQ was the biggest liar, Mahmud Ahmad only extended a previous lie. Get the picture?


Be Sociable, Share!

15 thoughts on “WHY DID I LEAVE AHMADIYYAT by The Rationalist

  1. lol.”we can,what we will do”.i think his intention was to say
    ” we can do everything” but his poor english language skills never supported him.
    may be he also wanted to insinuate that he was a “kun fayakkun”.

    first he says,”i can what i can do”
    then “we can what we will do”
    may be mirza was trying to bully his opponents and to impress his followers in a cheap manner.
    i think this was mirza sahab’s intention to say
    “god can do everything and because mirza was his prophet(mazaallah) so mirza’s desires will also be accepted very easily.”

  2. No, he is saying both are revelations. He is trying to say that God can do everything and God said the same thing in singular and plural tense.

    But the problem is that his English is so stupid that it is even hard to laugh.

  3. @rationalist
    why you get guidence other then Holy Qur’an, or hadith, it is mentioned very clearly if some one is believer and righteous then surely Allah will make him Khalifa on the earth.
    Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security and peace after their fear: They will worship Me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Then whoso is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious.

    if there is no khalifa its mean there is no truth according to this vers. can you explain this vers for me plz?

  4. look you left khilafat and soon after you left ahmadiyya, because truth is with khilafat, after khilafat you dont find any truth in other believes.

  5. This is what the father of tafseer had to say on the matter (ibn Abbas):


    (Allah hath promised such of you) O Companions of Muhammad (pbuh) (as believe and do good works) between themselves and their Lord (that He will surely make them to succeed (the present rulers) in the earth (to succeed others)) some of them in succession to others (even as He caused those who were before them) among the Children of Israel: Joshua ben Nun, Caleb ben Jephunneh; it is also said that this means: We shall make them dwell in the land of Mecca as We made those before them, among the Children of Israel, dwell in their land after the destruction of their enemy; (and that He will surely establish for them) He will make triumph (their religion which He hath approved for them) and has chosen for them, (and will give them in exchange) of Mecca (safety) following the destruction of their enemy (after their fear) of the enemy. (They serve Me) in order that they worship Me in Mecca. (They ascribe no thing) no idol (as partner unto Me. Those who disbelieve henceforth) after victory and change of fortune, (they are the miscreants) the disobedient.

  6. FACTOIDS, 3 of the 4 rightly guided khalifas after the HP(saw) were brutally assasinated, is this the promise that Allah gave us?

    Then in your opinion (qadiani thought) this promise was withheld for like 1300 years.

    You should read Shahadutul Quran by MGA, the LAM have translated into english, MGA says that this verse applies to Hazrat Abu Bakr only.

    I can find the exact reference if you so desire. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad never commented as to why MGA directed this Quranic verse to Hazrat Abu Bakr only….

    Obviously this verse means something else…

  7. slam bro
    1. i will check this tafseer by my self from different source,
    2. Plz refer me the book of promise messiah (as) you have read about this, as an ahmadi I believe 4 khulfa-e-rashideen?
    3. If I take meaning what you told me then its mean this verse is no more in use, is it canceled or can we remove it from Holy Qur’an,
    According to Ahmadiyya believe, each and every vers is guidance for a Muslim Forever, each and every verse have still meaning, there is not any verse that is only for sahaba but not for other Muslims, is there any hadith that some verses are only for sahaba but not for other muslims,

  8. what about these hadith a bout calif
    Book 041, Number 6961:
    Abu Nadra reported:” We were in the company of Jabir b. ‘Abdulldh that he said it may happen that the people of Iraq may not send their qafiz and dirhams (their measures of food stuff and their money). We said: Who would be respolisible for it? He said: The non_Arabs would prevt them. He again said: There is the possibility that the people of Syria may not send their dinar and mudd. We said: Who would be responsible for it? He said This prevention would be made by the Romans. He (Jabir b. Abdullab) kept quiet for a while and then reported Allah’, s Messengdt (may peas be upon him) having said There would be a caliph in the last (period) of my Ummah who would freely give handfuls of wealth to thd people wiothout counting it. I said to Abu Nadra and Abu al-‘Ala: DO you mean ‘Umarb. ‘Abd al-Aziz? They said: No (he would be Imam Mahdi.).
    Book 041, Number 6962:
    This hadith hab been narrated by Sa’id with the same chain of transmitters.
    Book 041, Number 6963:
    Abu Sa’id reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace he upon him) I said: There would be amongest your caliphs a caliph who would give handfuls of wealth to the, but wbuld not count it. In. the narration transmitted on the authority of Ibn Hujr, there is a slight variation of wording.
    Book 041, Number 6964:
    Abu Sa’id and Jabir b. Abdullah reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: There would be in the last phase of the time a caliph who would distribute wealth but would not count.

      • this is a mirare, they are your brothern there level of spirituality is same, if someone can leave the islam then why not ahmadiyyat?

        • Ahmadiyyat is a make-shift version of Islam.

          Nasir Ahmad’s fees to attend Oxford university were paid from very poor ahmadis.

          Mahmud Ahmad got fat and rich as soon as he became khalifa. He married a second time just 2 months after his election.

          The misappropriaiton of funds is a long laundry list of sexual interests of one family.

          WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO!!!!

        • @speaktruth (you never)

          before you get onto this blog, go learn some basic english: word of god not can exchange – revelation of yalash to his slave mirza kazzab qadiani who called muslims bastard (haram zada) while he himself was. laanat x 1001 upon that walad-ul haram.

  9. @Rationalist
    you raised point about ahmadiyya, are the same points non believers raised about Holy Prophet (saw),
    plz make some difference in your points and the points of non believers,
    dont follow the footsteps of non believers

    you ask yourself what you are saying, is it Islamic or Satanic?
    English is not compulsory in Islam

Comments are closed.