An Ahmadi commentator on Shahid’s post recently described his community as the “Epitome of Unity”, and cited the system of Khilafah as a symbol of this fact. Is their unity really as solid as they would like to admit? Lets take a closer look.

For starters, most of us know that the Ahmadi community split into two sects: Lahori and Qadiani. The Lahori group claims to be the true followers of Mirza Ghulam. They condemn the mainstream Qadiani leaders as misguided and aggressively argue against Qadiani Ahmadiyya. They venerate Mirza Ghulam, but citing his own books, they do not consider him to be a prophet.

That split is well-known. But, most do not know that even the Qadiani sect split. Not once, but several times. Each claims to be the true Qadian sect. Here are some examples:

• Anwar-ul Islam Movement of Nigeria
• Jama’at Ahmadiyya Al Mouslemeen – This group considers the mainstream Ahmadis to be misguided, heavily criticizes the Ahmadi concept of Khilafah, and cites Mirza Ghulam’s own writings.
• Jamaat ul Sahih Al-Islam

So much for unity! They cannot even agree if he was a prophet or not! Thus is the fate of those who invent lies in the religion of Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Now compare this to Islam. It is undeniable that there are differences amongst Muslims. Anyone who says otherwise is deceiving himself. But contrary to what the Ahmadi leaders say, Muslims are nearly theologically homogeneous. The Islam preached in China is the same practiced in Sweden, South Africa or Mexico. I always say, if you were blindfolded and listened to a talk in a masjid in any random part of the world, you would not know which “school of thought” that community belonged to unless you asked very specific questions.

Why are we theologically unified? It is because our scholars and intellectuals do not reinvent the entire faith every few years. We do not expect divine reformers to completely alter the interpretations of the faith. Most importantly, we do not put utmost prophetic faith in any individual except the Prophet Muhammad, prayers and peace be upon him. Instead, we refer to the interpretations and understandings of the earliest Muslims. We recognize that they were closer to the prophetic cup of guidance. So, when there are disputes in understanding, we look to see how the first few generations understood the religion and submit ourselves to their pure conclusions. From personal experience, I have attended lecture events where Shaykhs from Syria, Pakistan and New York held the same positions and conclusions- no differences!

When disputes occur, they come in two flavors:

1. High-level, trivial issues of rationalized beliefs that are not explicitly found in the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions. In general, these kinds of differences do not manifest and most Muslims are not even aware of them.
2. How to react to modern political events – These are not theological disputes, they are purely based on politics.

Orthodox Muslims do not feel the need to adhere to any group or ideology, except when necessary to distinguish ourselves from those who have clear sectarian approaches to Islam. If you have more questions about this, kindly refer to Differences in the Ummat and Siraat-e-Mustaqeem by Mufti Afzal Hoosen Elias. His explanation is far more thorough and complete.

So, what about a Khalifah? After all, Muslims don’t have a Khalifah and Ahmadis do. Isn’t that a point for the Ahmadi side? Well, not quite. Mirza Masroor Ahmad can call himself whatever he likes, but he is not a khalifah. For a better explanation, kindly refer to this video:

To my dear Ahmadi readers, Islam is your Birthright! You are our brothers who were torn from us. Take back what Mirza Ghulam stole from you! Leave Ahmadiyya and become a Muslim!