Cough Remedy

I left Ahmadiyyat because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a liar and a charlatan. Find out why I believe this to be true.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Chanda vs. Zakat

I've heard from Ghulam-Ahmadis that I focus on financial matters too much. How absurd. Their number skills are lacking, go through these posts and do the maths!. Whenever I mention money on Ahmediorg I'm told to leave jama'at Ahmadiyya alone, it's not my money and I'm apparently jealous. Please, gimme a break. I write passionately against it, because I believe it to be false and I want my friends out of the delusion.

One of the issues that crops up is the confusion over Zakat and chanda. Ghulam-Ahmadis claim that chanda is zakat and that it's used for the propagation of Islam. That's nonsense. Some of the chanda is used for the propagation of Ghulam-Ahmadism. Every time there's an issue about Islam in the press, Ghulam-Ahmadis stand opposed to Islam and are quick to distance themselves. So here, let's set the record straight about the issue of Zakat and chanda.

  1. Zakat is not chanda

  2. Chanda is not Zakat

  3. Check your receipts, you will see separate line items for zakat, chanda aam, chanda this, chanda that, tehrike-those, waqfe-thus etc. showing you clearly that Zakat is not chanda

  4. Zakat can be used for the propagation of Islam, but it is used for many other things too. Chanda is also used to enrich the Mirza clan and their closest buddies

  5. Zakat is 2.5% of your wealth, chanda is 6.25% flat

  6. Zakat is compulsory and has a name - it is repeated along with the word "salat" many times in the Noble Qur'an. Chanda is an invention and you will get different answers at different times in different settings from different people on whether it is compulsory or not. Like much else in Ahmadiyya, it is Schrodinger's Chanda. It fixes itself as different values depending on the above factors. Nobody really knows the complete state and vector of a sub-atomic particle. Nobody knows the true stance of Ghulam-Ahmadiyya on just about any issue of note.

  7. Nobody in Ahmadiyya talks about Zakat. When the finance secretaries go through their call lists, they ask for donations to every scheme and for chanda at risk of expulsion, but they never ask for Zakat.

Nobody argues with using Zakat to propagate Islam. That's fine, but Ghulam-Ahmadi office-bearers in practice put the word of Allah (swt) behind their backs and defend the Mirza clan's chanda to the death. Get a clue.

I hope that's clear enough.


  • At 10:38 pm, Anonymous Iftakhar Ahmed said…


    first: i wanted you to know, that chanda is not an obligation for being a member of the jamaat.

    second: if the jamaat wants to punish somebody for something then they say to the secretary maal, that they mustn't get money of the punished person. so if the jamaat would use the money to get richer, then normally they would have wanted to have or get the money of the chanda.

    third: at the end of every year there is published a budget, in which is a detailed presentation of every cent which was collected and which was used ans where it was used.

    so if you would have studied all that you wouldn't think like that. and if you still thing wrong about chanda write at

    wasalam and may allah ta'ala help you to find the right way


  • At 8:39 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It seems Chanda is the means that they use to punish people. Hmm.. make you think?

  • At 1:50 am, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with you completely regarding the Ahmaddiyya view on Chanda vs Zakat.
    Having been married to an Ahmadi, in all of the 19 years together,he never once paid zakat.
    But he made sure to pay chanda, as it was required.
    If you do not pay chanda, then you can not vote in any of the elections nor fully participate and be accepted by the jamaat.
    When I would mention that the payment stub does also show a breakdown for zakat, he said it was an error!


Post a Comment

<< Home

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Face Values

The recent furore over some provocative and deeply offensive cartoons printed in the press across Europe raises some interesting questions, not least of which relates to Muslims' strict adherence to the principle of no pictorial depiction of ANY of the prophets, or of Allah (swt). The reasons are straightforward, but the outstanding reason is for the avoidance of shirk or idolatry.

The question is this: The picture of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is widely circulated and displayed proudly in the manner of idol-worship in the homes of his followers everywhere - for a man who claimed to be the second advent of the Messenger (pbuh) - who claimed to follow him so perfectly, that only he could lay claim to his mantle, why did he not follow him in this vital principle?

If the prophets must not be depicted pictorially, then why is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad depicted pictorially in home after home after idol-worshipping home?


  • At 10:13 am, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I really suspect the aesthetic sense of Ahmadis when they resort to such practice of hanging MGA’s pictures at their homes. It is hard to understand why in the world they have to hang the picture of a haggard looking man who was suffering from all kind of diseases – most notably melancholia, mental weakness, hysteria, impotency and excessive urination that caused him to visit the toilet 100 times a day or once in every 15 minutes on average.


Post a Comment

<< Home