Did Ahmadiyya Fail with the African Americans?

Ahmadiyya doctrine has been in the inner cities of the USA circa 1921(See Moslem Sunrise, 1921 edition). They were the only ever missionary society that sold Islam “large-scale” in the USA. At that time, Mahmud Ahmad was the Khalifa and he was very aggressive with his marketing in terms of the global sales network of the Ahmadiyya Movement, i.e. Ahmadiyya dogma.

Mufti Muhammad Sadiq was sent to the USA as a missionary. He was a well respected confidant of MGA and was sure to bag his prey. Upon arrival in the USA, the Mufti quickly began to work with peoples of all colors and developed a group of converts. African-Americans were particularly attracted to the garbled message that the Mufti taught and mistook it for Islam. At the time, African-Americans were being trampled over and were looking for a religion that would preach equality. They began to join Ahmadiyya and by the 1940’s Ahmadis could claim between 5,000—10,000 Ahmadis (See Marabell and Turner).
By the 1950’s most of the African-Americans were on their way out and were particularly upset with the fact that African-Americans were made murrabi and weren’t allowed to hold top leadership positions in the USA jamaat (see Amina McCloud).

More and more Muslims were beginning to emigrate from the Middle East and they were teaching a more orthodox interpretation of Islam. African-Americans began to leave en-masse, they also finally learned that MGA claimed prophethood and in Islamic terms that was heresy (See Amina McCloud).

By the 1970’s, Ahmadiyyat had faded significantly in terms of their advance on the US population. Less and less African-Americans were joining and the children of those that had joined in the 1930’s were disinterested in Ahmadiyya dogma and lifestyle. If you looked recently, the national Khuddam Ijtema and Jalsa’s here in the USA have less than 3% African-Americans.

Nowadays, Ahmadiyyat in the USA is relying on immigration to help fuel this enormous cash cow which is called the USA Ahmadiyya Movement.

Be Sociable, Share!

20 thoughts on “Did Ahmadiyya Fail with the African Americans?

  1. Ahmadiyya like all cults has bursts of growth but this is usually not sustainable.
    Despite having a head start in the USA and maybe even UK, the jamat still falls flat on its face and does not transform into a mass movement.
    In the presence of Islam it shrivels up and dies, in the same way darkness is unable to exist when light emerges.
    I was watching a youtube video of an australian parade, ahmadiyya cult had representation there, and as you guessed it was just old punjabi men in punjabi clothes marching down waving their flags.
    The boast by ahmadiyya that they are spreading is almost always in reference to punjabi ahmadis who have migrated somewhere and there is often little sign of indigenous uptake.
    In the UK despite their messiah groveling since the days of English Imperialism, most British people have never heard of the cult and their centres are still full of punjabi.
    Just look at the friday sermon video on you tube of masroor, the audience is entirely punjabis.
    The article also highlights a key point, which is the racism in the cult very similar to the mormon cult which didnt allow blacks in high office in its early days.
    The idea that a non-punjabi non-family member of the mirza family could become khalifa is beyond impossible.
    punjabi cult.

    • Ahmadiyya does not have growth in the US except in the VERY beginning and in the UK over a 10-year period (1995-2005) there were only 200~ converts.

    • Just like the first four Khilfa’s were all related to Muhmmad (SAW) and were all arabs?

  2. Good article Brother Rationalist

    Just the other day I heard an ahmadi saying that they are growing in numbers that is now is every part of the UK and yet I still see punjabis.

    I was also told that in the US there have been a number of new ahmadis in Kansas and the numbers are growing!

  3. @ Gamal

    You nailed it bro. In the USA, and the UK these people had a major head-start. However, Mahmud Ahmad wasnt allowing non-Indians into prominent management positions. This led to a mass-exodus of African Americans. If I remember correctly it was Wali Akram of Cleveland who finally blew the whistle on Ahmadiyyat (see McCloud). In the same era, African-Americans began to learn about the prophethood of MGA, this also caused a mass-exodus.

    Nowadays, Ahmadiyyat is relying on immigration and the persecution racket to help fuel its cash cow, i.e. Jamaat Ahmadiyya USA.

  4. We only live once and if we waste our life in a false cult, what good is that. Just like the people of Nation of Islam realized that this was wrong, I hope inshaAllah Ahmadis realize that their cult is not ISLAM.

    We all know that MGA was a slave of the Imperialist colonial forces in India at that time. No true prophet of GOD almighty was a slave of a government. Instead of bringing peace to the World, MGA supported tyranny and injustice of the colonizers. I think Gandhi was much better than him in this matter, and he did not claim to be a messiah or a prophet.

  5. Is it true that the founder of the ‘Nation of Islam’ was a Ahmadiyya – claiming to be Isa (as) and then telling Elijah Muhammad that he was the Mehdi?
    Or something along those lines?

    • Its a theory, that he was an Indian who came to the US in the early 1900s. Ahmadiyya relies heavily on Indo-Pak culture, and he found that it was not designed for the African-American community. Therefore, he modified some of the ideas, declared himself a prophet to a lost people, borrowed their Qur’an translation, and ran with it.

      Again, its only a theory. Allahu ‘Alim.

    • @ Abu Musa

      This part is hard to prove. I think McCloud wrote to the effect that she thought Fard was a Lahori missionary to the USA. I think she wrote that he left for Fiji around the same time that Fard dissappeared. McCloud gave an exact name as well.

      In my opinion, Fard was some type of Ahmadi who was preaching in the USA, he must have left Ahmadiyyat and began teaching a unique form of Islam which had Bahai as well as Ahmadiyya leanings.

  6. Looks like this is the day and age of fitnas.

    Most likely there will be many offshoots from fitnas like Ahmadiyyat that will spread on the land and confuse to a lot of people. It is becoming more and more complex as each of these fitnas claims to be a true religion, but if you look carefully it is not that hard to figure out that they are all for money, cheap politics and serving their masters with full obedience.

  7. To be fair Islam as a whole including Ahmadiyyat has had a very difficult time in the West, i.e Europe and America. Muslims represent 0.8% of US population which after 100 years is hardly substantial and the vast majority are still immigrants or born to immigrants with a fraction of a percentage being converts. The case in the U.K/Europe is even worse with proportionally to the numbers of Muslims in the country the number of converts is negligible with most of ths converting due to marriage. Check the stats please

    • What is your point?

      To make it clear Islam and Ahmadiyya are separate religions. It is the will of GOD almighty and we hope and pray that better days will come inshaAllah.

  8. Ahmadiyya Qadiyani/Lahori


    Can someone please give let me know what is the difference between these two ‘sects’?

    • @ Abu Musa

      This is long topic…

      Very briefly…

      1. Lahoris didnt want to call Muslims as Kafirs, they wanted to build bridges in the Muslim community. They wanted to be a part of the Ummah. They wanted to move away from the extreme portions of MGA’s writings…

      2. Muhammad Ali wanted the money for his work. If he would have remained a Qadiani…the proceeds of his Qurans would have went into Mahmud’s bank account. He eventually made millions off of his Quranic commentary. His off-spring still gets royalty checks from the proceeds of that book.

      3. Akber C said once that the Lahoris are “Qadiani-light”, they are sort of a Diet Coke of Ahmadism. In 1914, they opened a book depot at Woking wherein they sold Muhammad Ali’s and Kamalluddins books. They rarely sold a book by MGA. I have recently read that they even openly told people that they didnt promote Ahmadiyyat…instead they promoted a liberal version of Islam with Muhammad Ali’s Quran at the forefront.

      • Apart from not wanting to make ‘Takfir’ – what is the main difference in their ‘aqeeda’/beliefs

        • Qadianis believe MGA as a prophet, Lahoris do not. Qadianis believe that MGA erred in his interpretation of what a nabi constitutes. Or..he found a new definition of the word prophet (see Mahmud Ahmad’s Haqeeqatul Nubuwwa [1915]). Lahoris view MGA as a muhaddas who was metaphorically called prophet.

          The Arya Samaj had a similiar split in 1892-3.

          Qadianis argue the the same ‘type” of error was committed by MGA in terms of his claim to be Esa (as). In the beginning (1880), MGA thought that he was only similiar to Esa (as), hence he wrote in Braheen Ahmadiyya vol. 4 that Esa (as) was alive in heaven. However, in 1891, MGA had a change in beliefs or “tabdili-aqidah” in terms of the status of Esa (as). In 1891, MGA denied prophethood…10 years later he claimed to have erred, however, if you read “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala [1901]”, MGA doestt own up to the error, instead he blames it on a mystery follower, that has never been identified by either party.

          The Qadianis also associate the ‘Ismuhu-Ahmad” verse with MGA and Lahoris refused to do so.

          Lahoris have been slowly moving away from MGA since 1908.

          • Do the scholars place the Lahori’s in the same boat as the Qadiyani’s (i.e. they have left the fold of Islam?)

  9. @ Abu Musa

    I think Islamic scholars have included all Ahmadi-splinter groups in their global-issuance-of-takfeer. Ahmadis are simply a dangerous polticial party that is hell-bent on gaining more membership, and thus collecting more money.

    Also, in 1974, the Lahoris were included in the Non-Muslim category of Pakistan.

    Akber C gave the best description of Lahoris, i.e. “Qadiani-light”.

    An even better description is “Diet-Ahmadiyyat”.

  10. Ahmadis/Lahoris have different opinion of MGA, but look at exactly what he claimed.

    MGA made several claims including mahdi, messiah and prophet, but never lived up to any of these claims. According to teachings of Islam there is no such all-in-one person.

    So in my opinion, following MGA is a risky business, also why do we need anyone else when we have the best of mankind as our Prophet p.b.u.h.

Comments are closed.