American Muslim Charities: Easy Targets in the War on Terror
December 3, 2004
Contents:
- Introduction
- Charitable Giving in Islam
- Government Tools Available in Targeting American Muslim Charities
- Closures of Muslim American Charities
- Consequences on Muslim Charitable Giving
- The Treasury Department and the American Muslim Community
- Political Considerations
- The Future
Introduction
Within three
months of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, President Bush announced
the designation of the Holy Land Foundation based in Dallas, Texas as a
terrorist organization. He made this announcement at a press conference in the
Rose Garden four days after a request from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Since then, three other Muslim charities based in the US were similarly
designated, their assets frozen and their operations completely disrupted. The
US government has not obtained a single terrorist conviction of any of the
principles of these organizations nor has the government proven conclusively
that any of the funds were used to finance activities at all related to the
events of 9/11 or to al-Qaeda. Yet, the government continues to display its
closures of Muslim charities as evidence of progress being made in the War on
Terror. These actions raise numerous questions that seriously affect the rights
of Americans both to engage in charitable giving and to know that their
government's efforts directly result in the increased safety and security of the
American people.
Charitable Giving in
Islam
Reliable data on charitable giving trends among American
Muslims is non-existent. However, the tradition of charity, referred to in Islam
as Zakat, is well-established as it is one of the five pillars of faith for
Muslims and thus a religious obligation. The Qur'an describes the recipients of
those who qualify as beneficiaries in the following manner:
"The
offerings given for the sake of God are (meant) only for the poor and the needy,
and those who are in charge thereof, and those whose hearts are to be won over,
and for the freeing of human beings from bondage, and (for) those who are
over-burdened with debts, and (for every struggle) in God's cause, and (for) the
wayfarer: (this is) an ordinance from God - and God is all-knowing, wise."
(9:60)
They will ask thee as to what they should spend on others. Say:
"Whatever of your wealth you spend shall (first) be for your parents, and for
the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer; and whatever
good you do, verily, God has full knowledge thereof." (2:215)
Therefore,
at the peak times of giving, such as at the end of the month of fasting
(Ramadan), Muslims the world over are keen to pay their alms to the poorest of
the poor, neediest of the needy, especially among their brethren considering the
fact that many of the world's destitute are Muslims. Muslim American charities
appeal to this urge with orphan sponsorship programs, food programs especially
during the month of Ramadan, disaster relief and basic provisions of health care
and education. Recently, more organizations are working on sustainable
development projects that can have more long term effects on improving the lives
of those in greatest need.
Government Tools Available in
Targeting American Muslim Charities
Under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the government can block the assets of
entities suspected of providing material and other support for terrorism (other
than medicine or religious materials such as Bibles). Executive Order 13224,
issued by President Bush on September 23, 2001, "prohibits US persons from
transacting or dealing with individuals and entities owned or controlled by,
acting for or on behalf of, assisting or supporting, or otherwise associated
with, persons listed in the Executive Order. Those designated and listed under
the Executive Order are known as "Specially Designated Global Terrorists"
(SDGTs).
At a hearing before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Richard Newcomb, then Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) best explained the tools at the Treasury Department's disposal in the aftermath of 9/11/2001:
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 has enhanced OFAC's ability to implement sanctions and to coordinate with other agencies by clarifying OFAC's authorities to block assets of suspect entities prior to a formal designation in "aid of an investigation". In addition, the PATRIOT Act explicitly authorizes submission of classified information to a court, in camera and ex parte, upon a legal challenge to a designation. This new PATRIOT Act authority has greatly enhanced our ability to make and defend designations by making it absolutely clear that OFAC may use classified information in making designations without turning the material over to an entity or individual that challenges its designation.
Changes in the law have greatly enhanced the Department's ability to target
and disable organizations and individuals based primarily on suspicion and not
on proven evidence of wrong doing as would be required in a court of law for a
conviction of terrorism. Apparently, officials at the Treasury and Justice
Departments unanimously agree on the usefulness of these changes and look
forward to additional enhancements in the future.
In the cases of the
two Illinois based charities below, OFAC was able to freeze their assets during
the "pendency of an investigation" which was made possible by provisions from
the PATRIOT Act. According to the Monograph on Terrorist Financing presented to
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States in August
2004,
This provision lets the government shut down an organization without any formal determination of wrongdoing. It requires a single piece of paper, signed by a midlevel government official. Although in practice a number of agencies typically review and agree to the action, there is no formal administrative process, let alone any adjudication of guilt.
...The administrative record needed to justify a designation can include newspaper articles and other hearsay normally deemed too unreliable for a court of law. A designated entity can challenge the designation in court, but its chances of success are limited. The legal standard for overturning the designation is favorable to the government and the government can rely on classified evidence that it shows to the judge but not defense counsel, depriving the designated entity of the usual right to confront the evidence against it.
Closures of Muslim American
Charities
Holy Land Foundation
Based in Dallas,
Texas, HLF was the largest Muslim American humanitarian organization providing
assistance overseas with a budget of close to $12 million per year. HLF provided
services in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Kosovo, Chechnya and elsewhere. To the
average Muslim living in the US, HLF was a trusted name. On December 4, 2001,
HLF was designated under IEEPA as a terrorist organization because, the
government alleged, they were providing assistance to Hamas in the Occupied
Territories. The case of HLF continues with the recent arrests and indictments
of several Board Members and employees of the organization, all of whom were not
required to post bail and who currently are awaiting their trial to begin in the
fall of 2005.
The case against HLF is mainly built around allegations
related to financing charitable works that had supposed links to members of
Hamas. The current indictments primarily revolve around donations to various
Zakat Committees throughout the West Bank and Gaza which are comprised of
members of the local Palestinian community and include individuals of various
sociopolitical affiliations. Other non-Muslim organizations in the US and
elsewhere also fund projects through the Zakat committees because they provide
an efficient means of disbursing assistance to the local groups most suited for
the humanitarian projects at hand. Yet, no other organization has been targeted
for working with the Zakat committees besides HLF. None of the court cases to
date appears to document an actual money trail of funds going from HLF to
individuals or organizations resulting in actual terrorist activity.
Once HLF was so designated and its assets were frozen, the organization
challenged the designation, lost and then appealed to the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals where they lost again. Finally, the Supreme Court refused to hear their
case. Based on these cases, the judge who is adjudicating the suit filed by the
Boim family against HLF, feels there is ample evidence to support the allegation
that HLF funded terrorism which will result in a substantial financial award to
the plaintiffs who are citizens of Israel as well as the US (see below).
Global Relief Foundation (GRF)
Based in Illinois, GRF was
the second largest American Muslim charity doing international work in Bosnia,
Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya and Lebanon. On December 14, 2001, GRF was
designated by the Treasury department as a terrorist organization and its
operations were shut down due to the freezing of its assets. While the
government's actions were upheld in court, no charges of terrorism were filed
against any individuals. The main fund-raiser for GRF, Rabih Haddad, underwent
closed deportation hearings due to supposed immigration violations. He was
deported to Lebanon the following year where he lives as a free citizen of that
country and all charges against him related to terrorism were dropped.
Benevolence International Foundation (BIF)
Also based in
Illinois, BIF was designated on December 14, 2001 along with GRF. The efforts of
BIF were concentrated in Bosnia and elsewhere. Eighteen months prior to the
designation, BIF had begun to work in the Occupied Territories. The government's
case was enhanced when they obtained documents in Bosnia linking leaders of BIF
to Osama bin Laden during the late 1980?s when the US government and military
were actively supporting the bin Laden and the mujahideen against the Soviets in
Afghanistan. During the criminal case, the government never provided evidence
that BIF funded al-Qaeda. The case was built around previous associations that
occurred ten years prior to the designation. Ultimately, Enam Arnaout, the
executive director, entered into a plea bargain whereby he admitted to using
some funds to provide boots and blankets to Chechen and Bosnian fighters. In
this case, the government did reveal that the funds were not being used
according to the donors' wishes, which is fortunate, but again, no links to
terrorism were ever proven. In fact, "the court held that the offense to which
Arnaout pled guilty, racketeering conspiracy, was not a crime of terrorism
defined by law," and that the government was unable to prove that the Bosnian
and Chechen beneficiaries were involved in any acts that could be considered
terrorism.
Despite this fact, officials of the Treasury Department refer
to BIF as having links to bin Laden in direct contradiction to the final
judgment issued by the court. For example, in March 2003, Juan Zarate, Deputy
Assistant Secretary in the Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crime,
claimed that the designation of BIF, "a Chicago-based charity that was
supporting al-Qaida" was an "example of the international community taking
common action to cut off the flow of funds to al-Qaida." His testimony referred
to BIF as a supporter of terrorism despite the fact that the case to prove such
allegations was still pending in court. Ultimately, the government dismissed all
charges that BIF and Arnaout provided material support to any terrorist
individuals or organizations.
Islamic American Relief Agency
(IARA)
At the beginning of Ramadan in 2004, the US Government
announced the designation of IARA as a terrorist organization under IEEPA. IARA
is based in Missouri and focuses its efforts primarily in Africa. The
allegations are related to supposed connections between IARA in the US and the
Islamic African Relief Agency in Sudan and include alleged connections to Hamas.
No criminal charges have been filed against any individuals affiliated with IARA
here in the US. According to personal correspondence, it appears that at the
time of the designation, IARA was a member in good standing of InterAction, an
umbrella group that requires its affiliated organization "to ascribe to
InterAction's Private Voluntary Standards that help assure accountability in
critical areas of financial management, fundraising, governance and program
performance." Similarly, "the Better Business Bureau of Eastern Missouri and
Southern Illinois found the group met 22 of its 23 standards for charitable
giving."
According to the Staff Monograph on Terrorist Financing to the
9/11 Commission cited earlier, much of the evidence used against these groups in
the terrorist designation process has been based on hearsay, media reports,
documents collected in trash bins, and secret evidence. In addition, the cases
of BIF and GRF "highlight fundamental issues that span all aspects of the
government efforts to combat al Qaeda financing: the difference between seeing
links to terrorists and proving funding of terrorists, and the problem of
defining the threshold of information necessary to take disruptive action."
Consequences on Muslim
Charitable Giving
Through the Treasury Department, the US
Government is able to freeze the assets of any organization before actually
charging any individuals with engaging in terrorism or the support thereof. In
addition, the Treasury Department is not obliged to prove its case in a court of
law unless the targeted organization challenges the designation with the
Treasury Department itself. Once the assets are frozen and the community becomes
aware that an organization is under investigation, even if the accusation has no
merit, the damage is irreversible resulting in the demise of the enterprise.
Despite the fact that the government has not been able to show in any of the
cases to date that funds were used to directly finance and support terrorism,
all of the groups now are completely defunct.
Few have ventured to fill
the void, meaning that only a small number of Muslim American groups remain that
provide humanitarian assistance abroad. Prior to these closures, there were
fewer than a dozen Islamic organizations based in the US doing charitable work
abroad that were known to the community. Only two new organizations have emerged
since 9/11. All groups function with the awareness that they can be closed down
at any time regardless of any actions they take to remain transparent and
functioning within the law. Despite attempts by the Administration, the Treasury
Department and others to reassure American Muslims that neither they nor their
institutions are being targeted unfairly, the facts suggest the opposite.
In addition, the government's actions against Muslim American charities
have little, if any, impact on making the rest of the American public more
secure. Instead, these high profile cases result in the more dangerous
consequence of leading people to believe that things are safer when they have
made no difference whatsoever despite massive expenditures of taxpayer money.
For many years, Muslims in the United States felt they were fulfilling
their religious obligation by giving to groups that provided and provide
humanitarian assistance overseas in places like Lebanon, Kosovo, Palestine,
Africa, South Asia, Chechnya and Afghanistan to name a few. Local and national
groups engaging in grass roots issues such as civil liberties protection had to
sell the idea that donating to those efforts also qualified as zakat. Now that
the community's choice of groups providing humanitarian assistance
internationally continues to dry up, many have diverted their giving to focus on
community based activities in the US . In addition, fear of being placed on a
"government list" for donating to a charity that is suspect, negatively affects
giving patterns as well. As a result, the yet-to-be-documented trends in giving
among American Muslims are likely undergoing tremendous shifts.
The Treasury Department and the
American Muslim Community
At the start of Ramadan in 2004, the
Secretary of Treasury issued a "Ramadan" statement, cautioning Muslims against
giving to questionable groups, "When you open your hearts to charity during
Ramadan, we encourage you to educate yourself on the activities of the charities
to which you donate, to help ensure that your generosity is not exploited for
nefarious purposes." He included the list of 27 groups that have been designated
by the US Government for supporting terrorism and noted that it is a crime to
support them in any fashion.
The government appears to function under
the basic assumption that charitable donations on behalf of Muslims have been
and will be corrupted intentionally or unintentionally and therefore, all acts
of Muslim giving overseas are suspect. To date, the government has not been able
to demonstrate a "money trail" that would confirm unequivocally the allegation
that American Muslim charitable funds have been used to finance terrorism.
However, the cloud of suspicion continues to grow despite modest efforts on the
part of Treasury and other branches of government to convince the community
otherwise.
Treasury Issues Voluntary Best Practices
Guidelines
The Treasury Department has engaged with the Muslim
community on a variety of levels since they began their efforts to interdict
funds directed at terrorist groups.
In 2002, the Treasury Department
issued Anti-Terrorist Financing Guidelines: Voluntary Best Practices for
US-Based Charities as a response to demands from the American Muslim community
according to Juan Zarate during a speech at the Convention of the Muslim Public
Affairs Council (MPAC) in December, 2002. The guidelines mainly provide
recommendations that mirror most due diligence practices of charitable
organizations with a few additions, some of which are cumbersome, impractical
and unrealistic. For example, the Guidelines advise charities to determine if
the financial institution with which the foreign recipient maintains accounts is
a shell bank, operating an offshore license, licensed in a jurisdiction that is
non-cooperative in the fight against money-laundering, licensed in a
jurisdiction where there are inadequate money-laundering controls and oversight,
etc. Section 4 of the Guidelines outlines these and other measures that would
require a great expenditure of resources on the part of the charities, something
that would be very difficult, especially for smaller organizations. In addition,
the areas in greatest need are often the areas that have the least amount of
government control and oversight, making it difficult to comply completely with
the Guidelines in all circumstances.
At various meetings with the Muslim
community, Treasury officials confirmed that complete compliance with the
Guidelines does not protect against seizure of assets, closure, government
investigations and ultimate designation as an entity supporting terrorism if the
government so wills. In other words, full compliance with the Treasury
Guidelines does not offer "safe haven" from government action against any group.
Muslim Umbrella Group
Shortly after the Guidelines were
issued, the Treasury Department began to meet with Muslim groups, such as the
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and MPAC, for what Treasury considered
to be the "next step" in providing guidance with respect to charitable giving.
Treasury sponsored a gathering that included individuals from the Better
Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance and the Evangelical Council on Financial
Accountability to encourage Muslims to follow their models in forming an
umbrella group under the auspices of an organization like ISNA which ultimately
would provide some sort of "seal of approval" for member groups. At ISNA's
annual convention in Chicago in the fall of 2004, the representatives of Muslim
charities doing work in the US and abroad raised concerns about which groups
could best lead this effort and questioned whether Muslims needed to organize
separately in the first place.
The major question raised was What could
a separate Muslim umbrella organization offer that was not already being
provided by more experienced, well-established groups, such as InterAction. At
the meeting, the representative from the Treasury Department replied that "you
have some things on your radar screen that we don't." Such a statement is open
to various interpretations but, at a minimum, was not reassuring. When pressed
about the role of Treasury in facilitating a process that would enable Muslims
to give without worry, he acknowledged that the Treasury Department emphasizes
investigation and enforcement, not facilitation.
Most importantly,
however, is the fact that an umbrella organization that vets groups and issues a
"seal of approval" does not give American Muslims what they want: a guarantee
that the group is doing legitimate work from the American government's point of
view, that the group is not under investigation by any branch of law
enforcement, and that they as donors will not be targeted by law enforcement
under any future investigation.
After the closure of IARA at the start
of Ramadan in 2004, Muslims in New Jersey called upon the government to issue a
"white list" of acceptable charities to which they could donate without fear of
donating to groups with terrorist ties. The Justice Department rejected the
request stating that it was impossible to fulfill. According to Juan Zarate,
Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes at the Treasury
Department, "You can't have the US government picking favorites in a
multi-billion dollar industry." He also cited market and First Amendment
concerns as limitations.
Denial of Licenses to Transfer
Funds
After the assets of HLF were frozen in 2001, Muslim donors
expressed a desire to have their money returned or at least be transferred to
another group providing similar humanitarian assistance. Once the HLF case was
denied a hearing by the Supreme Court, the leaders of the organization agreed to
file an application with OFAC for a license to release the funds to another
group, namely, the Palestine Children's Relief Fund, a US based organization
providing medical and surgical services to Palestinians. The request was denied
due to two lawsuits pending against HLF. The government's refusal to honor the
wishes of the donors to have their funds transferred to groups whose record is
unscathed again belies the government's claim that it is not interested in
obstructing legitimate Muslim giving.
Soon after its assets were frozen,
BIF applied for a license from OFAC to release over $700,000 to fund a
Tuberculosis hospital in Tajikistan and a Women's Hospital in Daghestan. Despite
evidence of the valid, humanitarian nature of this work, OFAC refused to grant
the license because it was concerned that "even funds sent to seemingly
legitimate charities can be at least partially diverted to terrorist activities
overseas" that OFAC is unable to monitor adequately.
Donors Funds
Awarded to Victims of Terror
In November 2004, a federal judge ruled
that HLF, along with several others, as alleged supporters of Hamas, are liable
in the damages (around $600 million) filed by the Boims, an American Israeli
family whose son was killed in a terrorist attack in Israel in 1996.
Now
that one of the pending cases has been decided in favor of the plaintiff, the
community's worst fears have been realized. Not only is their money not reaching
the intended recipients, it is being diverted to individuals who actively oppose
efforts to help vulnerable Muslim groups, especially among Palestinians. There
is no doubt that the families of any victims of murder should be adequately
compensated. However, the funds of law-abiding, unwitting donors should not be
used for such purposes since they themselves are not part of the lawsuit.
Indeed, attorneys in these cases want even more. In November 2002, a
friend and advisor to the Boims, attorney Nathan Lewin, testified before the
Senate Judiciary Committee that the seized funds of the designated groups should
be made available to the plaintiffs' attorneys in these types of cases if the
groups are unsuccessful in their motion to dismiss. Similarly, the funds should
go to the plaintiffs' attorneys if the plaintiffs prevail at the pretrial stage.
He argues that the government should share secret evidence with the plaintiffs'
(but not defendants') attorneys. Finally, he advocates specifically going after
donors to charities named in these lawsuits.
While the Boim case goes to
appeal, a victory on behalf of the plaintiffs would set a worrisome precedent,
especially since the government so far has not shown how funds raised by HLF
actually got into the hands of a terrorist individual or organization. Without
such proof, similar cases can be filed against any organization that some day
may be designated as "terrorist" under the vagueness of IEEPA and any subsequent
statutes that could emerge in the wake of the PATRIOT Act.
Political
Considerations
The cases against the Muslim charities are based
on allegations related to activities that took place years before the current
War on Terror began. Yet, the timing of their closure as well as that of
high-profile arrests over the past three years clearly demonstrate a pattern on
the part of the government designed to give the impression at regular intervals
that they are making progress against terrorism, as if each case is a new
development. It is true that the removal of the "wall" between law enforcement
and intelligence (that is, to enable law enforcement to use surveillance
information in criminal cases) and other provisions of the PATRIOT Act have
facilitated the actions of the government post 9/11. It doesn't make sense to go
after groups or individuals simultaneously if the timing itself can be used to
the government's advantage. Also, several of the closures have coincided with
the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when giving is at its peak and therefore, the
government has the best chance to seize a larger amount of money. Of course,
these considerations are denied by government officials but the average observer
cannot be faulted for drawing such conclusions.
Despite government
allegations at the time of the terrorist designations of American Muslim
charities, not a single court case has resulted in a conviction that is related
to the events of 9/11 or to al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, during testimony on Capitol
Hill, the Treasury Department repeatedly cites the cases of GRF, BIF and HLF as
models of success in their efforts to disrupt terrorist financing. They refer to
the loss of appeals by HLF as evidence that the courts uphold and defend the
government's position, thus justifying their actions to date. At the same time,
they consistently fail to acknowledge in their testimony that there are no
terrorist convictions among these cases. At times, Treasury officials contradict
the actual rulings in the cases. For example, in his testimony in March 2003,
Juan Zarate, stated that BIF was closed for ties to al-Qaeda. However, the
indictment itself issued against Arnaout in October 2002 "contained almost no
specific allegations that BIF funded al-Qaeda."
Concerns that the
Government's Actions Target at Aid to Palestinians
During the 1990's
HLF was under surveillance by Israeli intelligence resulting in the closure of
its offices and the arrests of employees in the West Bank and Gaza who were
subjected to torture and forced confession. Ultimately, President Bush's
decision to designate HLF upon the request of Ariel Sharon reinforced the
perception that the assault on one of the major Muslim American charities was
carried out as a favor to the government of Israel and not necessarily as a
means of making Americans living in the US safer. Since then, there is a growing
perception among American Muslims, that Muslim charities that continue to
provide aid to Palestinians will be singled out and targeted for investigation
and closure, not because of any wrongdoing, but because they assist Palestinians
at all. The alleged link of IARA to Hamas and the fact that GRF was targeted
months after beginning work in the Occupied Territories contribute to this
perception.
Senator Grassley's "List"
In 2003, Senator
Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, issued a press
release indicating that the Finance Committee was conducting its own
investigation of American Muslim charities and other non-profit organizations
potentially involved in diverting funds to terrorism. In a letter to Mark
Everson, Commissioner at the Internal Revenue Service, Grassley wrote that
Many of these groups not only enjoy tax-exempt status, but their
reputations as charities and foundations often allows them to escape scrutiny,
making it easier to hide and move their funds to other groups and individuals
who threaten our national security. Often these groups are nothing more than
shell companies for the same small group of people, moving funds from one
charity to the next charity to hide the trail.
The groups named to the
list included many well-established community based organizations who did not
understand the implications of being targeted in such a way. In addition, the
tone and content of his letter suggests that only Muslim organizations are
suspect, corruptible and presumed guilty, since no other groups were mentioned
in the letter. Since that time, the Senate Finance Committee has not issued a
single public statement or held a public hearing indicating further action or
interest in this issue. However, the Committee did sponsor a hearing on
charitable giving called "Charity Oversight and Reform: Keeping Bad Things from
Happening to Good Charities" in June, 2004. Despite the widespread attention
given to the possible role of American Muslim charities in financing terrorism,
no reference was made at that hearing to concerns affecting American Muslims and
their charities nor did any individuals involved in charitable giving in the
Muslim world testify.
Muslims Singled Out
All of the
SDGT's listed by the Treasury Department are Muslim. Despite the fact that
numerous other groups provide assistance in high-risk areas throughout the
Middle East, Africa and Asia, no non-Muslim charitable organization has been
designated as a supporter of terrorism. In view of the fact that no terrorism
convictions have resulted from the closures, it appears to many that Muslim
groups are singled out because they are Muslim first and foremost. And, since
the government is not obliged to prove its case justifying a designation, mere
suspicion of wrongdoing will suffice. The absence of terrorist convictions does
not inhibit the government from claiming victory, as long as the 'terrorist
designations' are upheld in the courts, even if they are based on faulty
evidence and lack of due process. As a result of the perceived inequities and
injustices, Muslims feel they are singled out based on their religion and that
other religious groups, such as Christian organizations, receive preferential
treatment, further perpetuating the idea that the government is attacking Islam
in general and seeking ways to open up the Muslim world to Christian
missionaries. While there may not be any truth to such thinking, the perception
in the community is real and has negative repercussions both hear and
abroad.
The Future
One positive
consequence of the increase scrutiny of Muslim charitable organizations is a
better understanding on their part of the need for transparency and
accountability. In the past, Muslim groups did not publish annual reports,
conduct audits or engage in the same kind of oversight that is commonplace among
other charitable institutions. This was a result of inexperience as opposed to
any devious intentions. But now there is a growing awareness of basic
expectations, not only to protect an organization from attack by law
enforcement, but mainly to provide assurances to donors that their money is
being spent according to their wishes. In addition, this better serves the
beneficiaries. In the end, Muslim groups know that being transparent and open
might help in mounting an effective legal defense if they are ever targeted by
the US government even though it won't guarantee anything.
Despite
concerns about the constitutionality of the use of government "lists" of
suspected terrorists, Muslim groups are using them to screen donors, employees
and beneficiaries as they are now prone to being more conservative in their
efforts to minimize any likelihood that they could be investigated or shut down.
Yet the sense of uncertainty remains and is likely to increase in the near
future. In addition, only a few new Muslim American humanitarian organizations
have emerged since 9/11 meaning that, in this country, fewer than a dozen groups
exist that provide assistance abroad on behalf of the American Muslim community.
Muslims are committed to following through with their religious
obligations but not if it means sacrificing their legal status in this country,
losing their jobs or their hard-earned money, or becoming the subject of an FBI
investigation. The government's efforts have had an effect that impacts the
already small contribution of American Muslim giving internationally. Based on
the evidence offered to the public to date, one can hardly conclude that the
seizure of assets, intimidation of the community, and dwindling opportunities
for Muslims to give to Muslim charities that work overseas has had any
meaningful effect in the War on Terror.
In fact, these actions may
actually make things worse. Muslims around the world pay attention to the
treatment of their brethren here in the US. Others see how democracy works when
American Muslims are able to engage in the full expression of their religious
faith, including alms-giving, When American Muslims, through their own
institutions, help provide humanitarian assistance to Muslims in need, they help
convey a positive image of what it means to be American. While we may be winning
by a show of force at this point, the long-term success of US efforts to promote
values of freedom, democracy and equality will be thwarted when we target the
wrong groups at home simply because of political expediency.
The ever
present threat of a "terrorist designation" by the Treasury Department functions
based on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent." The use of secret
evidence, hearsay, erroneous translations, guilt by association and press
reports in recent court cases further erodes the ability of charities to rely on
basic assumptions regarding their constitutional rights, especially when the
courts ultimately favor the government when "national security" allegedly is at
stake. Over-zealous surveillance tactics of the intelligence community such as
wiretapping, infiltrating organizations by bribing employees to work as spies
(thereby disrupting normal and lawful humanitarian activities), and engaging in
other forms of harassment - when added to the above bleak picture - will not
only chill, but will freeze completely American Muslim charitable giving
overseas. Perhaps this is the goal of the US government. However, no one should
be fooled into thinking that America or the American people will be much safer
as a result.
IN THIS SECTION
RELATED STORIES
-
"The Japanese/Muslim American Experience" Panel in SoCal
April 13, 2017 -
"Protecting Civil Rights" Panel in LA
April 6, 2017 -
"Know Your Rights" Workshop in SoCal
April 2, 2017
RELATED MULTIMEDIA
-
Racial Profiling & Effective National Security
March 18, 2010 -
Mid Day LA - Salam Al-Marayati
March 14, 2010 -
Alejandro Beutel Discusses Racial Profiling
January 7, 2010 -
Edina Lekovic Argues Against Racial Profiling - CNN
December 29, 2009
one-time or monthly donation.