Intro
There’s been some recent talk brought up about the links between the (Qadiani, as opposed to Lahori) Ahmadiyya leadership (henceforth will be called the Jamaat) and various offshore banking accounts that was brought to light in the Panama papers. I myself, not having any clue about how the Jamaat works was curious as to the validity of the claims.

First though some wonder if these attacks are even valid. As an Ahmadi has stated in a removed post from r/Islam:

From what I have read (and I could be mistaken) the Ahmadi feels that since there are absolutely no real attacks on the religion that the Jamaat teaches, that the opponents of the it’s religion have had to make ad-hominen attacks on the Jamaat in order to try to disprove it’s faith. Ignoring his claim that there are no real proofs against the faith, we must disagree simply because of how the Jamaat define their Caliph:

He would impart religious and spiritual knowledge to the fellow Muslims; maintain justice and piety in society, and remain above any party-politics. In addition, he administered all matters with mutual consultation (Shura) as was ordained in the Holy Quran.

Khilafat-e-Ahmadiyya is the bona-fide institution that has set goals to lead mankind on the path of righteousness, to bring Unity among the nations of the world, and to establish peace and security by safeguarding freedom, life and honor of all human-beings!

Click to access khilafat-and-caliphate.pdf

Therefore if such a Caliph was leading an organization that was involved in the same business that criminals do (as people who obey the law do not hide their money from it) said Khalifa would naturally have to immediately stop such activities and chastise those involved as soon as he discovered such activities were present as he “maintains justice and piety in society” and “lead mankind on the path of righteousness”.

Now upon reading the article
that is being shared on r/Islam, ignoring Mr. Akbar Choudhry’s (not to be confused with the radical Muslim “activist” Anjem Choudary) rather ‘confident’ attitude he seems to be onto something and does appear to have the evidence on his side. However we at r/Qadiani don’t stop with just an article and will be willing to listen to the other side and we found one on an Ahmadi subreddit.

Due to the fact we at r/Qadiani have an official policy against brigrading, and the fact that we will take any steps necessary to prevent it, we will not be releasing the author or original url of the rebutal. You’ll just have to take our word. Should you find the author or original url you should not harass them, leave them be. We will call the author “the rebutter”.

Before we begin though:

Once again r/Islam has posted a link specifically aimed at attacking Ahmadiyya. What a lovely, positive, ‘Islamic’ sub they have over there!

Yeah, just like your lovely “Islamic” Caliphs and prophets that attack Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Atheism, how lovely! What’s wrong, can’t take in what you dish out? It’s perfectly okay for Mirza Tahir Ahmad to attack Shias with arguments but Shias can’t attack your religion? It’s ok for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad telling Christians they are stupid and worship a dead God but no one can be critical of your faith? Is this the jihad of the pen? The jihad that is led by those who can only make idiotic ramblings and then scream persecution whenever someone attacks back?

The rebutter starts with an “exposure” on the author. We here at r/Qadiani do not really care about who the author is but if the author has sanctioned violence against Ahmadis we of course condemn it in no uncertain terms, we abhor violence against innocents. The Rebutter however does make a flawed point that because Mr. Choudhry is a vicious anti-Ahmadi he cannot therefore be relied on for information similar to Ayan Hirsi Ali. This is a common tactic among cultists but is unfortunately not true. Just because someone is against something doesn’t mean they cannot be correct or knowledgeable about it, there’s no inherent connection between being biased against something and being wrong. That being said we don’t know anything about Mr. Choudhry, and hence don’t take him as an authority.

They start by mentioning that the Ahmadi Muslim Community has a very good rating with the UK Charity Commission while alleging that other unspecified Muslim charities are not credible. We agree with the rebutter on this point although we have no idea on how a charity affiliated with the Jamaat being in good standing with the British government has anything to do with other organizations hiding money that are affiliated with the Jamaat.

He next states that the Jamaat forbids taking from the poor. We’re still not sure how this negates the fact that organizations are hiding money from the government.

He then says that the Jamaat provides an excessive (but unspecified) amount of money to Mosques, Qur’an publication (with their interpretation naturally), TV channels, websites, Smart phone apps, as well as schools and hospitals in areas where they proselytize. Again, no idea what this means in regards to them hiding money. If we presumed the worst of the Jamaat (ie, that they were evil men who know the whole thing was a fraud and only wanted their follower’s money) it would still make sense that the Jamaat engaged in activities that would expand their movement, so they would get more money so not quite sure how this negates anything at all.

He then replies that again, the budget of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association United Kingdom balances and that the only sign of the them engaging in fraudulent behavior is if the them either overspent or underspent (the Jamaat actually underspends by about 3% each year but that could be attributed to them saving money for future use). Both him and Mr. Choudhry appear to be incorrect however that the actually relevant charity in this is Al-Shirkatul Islamiyyah which saves 42% of it’s money every year and only spends 8% on charity
.

You see ASI in their official report
say that they make £1,588,263 from “Voluntary Income” (this means, people just give them their money, you know as a donation). They then make £6,980,938 in “Activies for Generating Funds” (these are like selling stuff, people are exchanging their money for something, it is not just a free donation). In spending they then spend £4,320,061 in “Fundraising trading” (this means how much they spent in selling the stuff. For example they could have made £6 million in selling books, well they only spent £4 to make said books). As you can see this means that from selling their products/services (or whatever) they make a comfortable ~£1.7 million pounds per year. In Charitable activities they then give £693,897. This means that they raise £1.5 million per year, give £600 thousand, and then make £1.7 million from selling goods/services whatever. In short, a net profit of around £2.6 million per year, and a ratio of 16(earn):3(give). Not quite balanced.

This handy form from the government defines everything in the forms

The rebutter than attempts to refute Mr. Choudhry’s claim that Mirza Masroor Ahmad buys property unrelated to the mission by stating the property the Jamaat buys that is related to the mission. Obviously this is not a rebuttal.

The rebutter did not make a refutation of Mr. Choudhry’s accusation about TJ Holdings.

The rebutter then states that Abul Baqi Arshad did not meet Mirza Masroor Ahmad prior to 2003 and therefore Mirza Masroor Ahmad would not use the 81 year old in charge of 23 organizations that handle money in charge of hiding money, despite the fact that Mr. Choudhry stated that Abul Baqi Arshad didn’t get hold of much until after 2003, where the rebutter states is the first evidence of when they met. Doesn’t sound like a rebuttal.

The rebutter then goes on to make a quick side point that Nusrat Jehan Academy is not named after the great-grandmother of Mirza Masroor Ahmad as Mr. Choudhry claims, but is named after the Nusrat Jahan Scheme. Well… as any Ahmadi would know Nusrat Jahan was the wife of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and is called Mother of the believers
so yes, it seems likely that the Nusrat Jahan Foundation which is named after the Nusrat Jahan Scheme name probably has something to do with Nusrat Jahan.

Finally the writes about how the Caliph collects hundreds of millions of dollars per year in Britain alone (despite both charities only making less than 20 million pounds hmm…. the rest must be in those offshore firms for sure) lives in a cheap one room bedroom above a mosque and only has a cheap shirt.

Oh yeah, the rebutter then adds a paragraph that answers the accusation everyone wants to know about, why they’re being named in the Panama Papers, and so the reason the Jamaat takes steps to hide their money is really just to hide it from the Pakistani government… despite the fact that all of the organizations named are in the United Kingdom and hence the government of Pakistan has no control over anyways.

Now remember financial sacrifice is incumbent on every Ahmadi so keep giving them your money and not expect them to tell you anything about what they’re doing it. That’s how prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, got the name the honest right? By demanding people’s money and refusing to tell them what he does with it?