Charity Begins at Hamas

Gregg Krupa of the Detroit News has given us yet one more article emphasizing the difficulties Muslims in America are having in practicing their faith, thanks to those guys at the FBI and Homeland Security. (“Muslims seek 'safe' charities for giving”).

The focus of this Friday’s front-page article is on Kenwah Dabajah, who, we’re told, “is in a quandary: How can she fulfill a central tenet of her faith, Islam, without putting herself in legal jeopardy?”

Ms. Dabajah's quandary, it seems, is that periodic raids on some Islamic charities--including, notably, Al-Mabarrat and Life for Relief & Development, which were targets of federal raids in July, "have made donors leery."

Ms. Dabajah, for example, says that she could always make donations to non-Muslim groups, “but, personally speaking, this is Ramadan….It is a Muslim holiday, and I never thought of it in any other way.”

Which only makes perfect sense, of course. But then I haven’t heard of any non-Muslims, in or out of government, saying that Muslims should stop donating to people of their own faith.

And why shouldn’t we feel bad about this, with our government raising barriers to people giving to charity and all, and the Detroit News using its front page to tell us about it, in hopes of pricking our consciences?

But then Ms. Dabajah just has to keep talking:

“Plus, there are plenty of Muslim people who are in dire need -- let's talk about the Palestinians and the Lebanese.”

Well, now, why does she have to bring that up?

For anyone who follows Middle East issues with even a smidgen of attention, there is no more loaded phrase than any that begins with “What about the Palestinians?” or, in Ms. Dabajah’s version, “let’s talk about the Palestinians.” (Ms. Dabajah’s addition of “and the Lebanese” shows that she’s willing to update her segue to meet the changing situation on the ground).

To which I respond: "What do you mean, 'let's talk about the Palestinians?' Is there any crime committed against Israel, any act of international terrorism costing no matter how many innocent lives, any hypocrisy of diplomats, any unjust resolution perpetrated by the UN, any excuse made for barbarism, any insane lecture in an American university, that doesn't rationalize the calling of evil, good, without first availing itself of the invitation, 'let’s talk about the Palestinians?'"

Naturally, if we’re going to talk about the Palestinians, (and the Lebanese), we aren’t any longer talking about the holy season of Ramadan, nor about charitable giving, nor the imperative virtue of generosity, nor orphans, nor warm hearts, nor hungry bellies. Not at all.

Now we’re talking about politics of the most brutal and provocative kind, the keystone of one of the 21st century’s greatest struggles. And Ms. Dabajah has just waved a very bloody flag. As Krupa writes:

Many Muslims, especially those of Arab descent, believe that people in Gaza, the West Bank and southern Lebanon are among those most in need of their assistance. But Hamas and Hezbollah -- declared terrorist groups by the United States -- dominate the government and social services in those regions, and charitable contributions are deemed far too risky -- even if local Muslims fly into the areas with cash and hand it to someone they know, as some do.

Far too risky? Isn’t it more correct to say that it is completely against American law to give money to Hezbollah and Hamas, especially as there is no confusion, even amongst American Muslims, that the US government considers them terrorist organizations?

And after the Al-Mabarrat raid Dawud Walid, of Michigan CAIR, confirmed Hezbollah’s control of much of what was being donated, when he said the group “is highly regarded, especially among Shia Muslims, and sends most of its support to southern Lebanon.”

In this context, make no mistake, the expression “Southern Lebanon,” like “let’s talk about the Palestinians,” is only a euphemism for “Hezbollah.” (We discussed this last year: "Like a Bad Neighbor, Hezbollah Is Still There").

Krupa's article continues:

Muslim leaders say orphans are of particular concern in Islam. So, when local federal officials assert, as they did when they publicized the raid on Life for Relief & Development, that contributing to orphans is often a euphemism for supporting terrorists, Muslims say a significant portion of their spiritual practices, especially during Ramadan, was jeopardized.

All right. So if you can't contribute to Hamas and Hezbollah, (tough choice, Kassams or Katyushas?), where among the remaining 999 million-plus Muslims (many impoverished) could you possibly find anyone more in need of charitable giving?

How about the Muslim orphans starving in the Sudan at the hands of the Islamic Arab government in Khartoum? Or what about the Iraqi orphans bereft of parents by Iranian IEDs, or by al Qaeda suicide attacks? How about the children of Palestinian parents killed in Israel by rocket attacks from Hamas? How about the children of Muslim-American soldiers or Muslim civilian contractors who’ve been killed trying to win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

But this is really only academic. The thing is, “contributing to orphans” really is just a euphemism for supporting terrorists. Behold this piece of Ramadan logic:

“When assisting orphans in the region of the Middle East, Muslims will undoubtedly be aiding people who are related, somehow, to organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah,” said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations-Michigan. “It is a fundamental problem: If someone has died defending their families or their land how can we not provide relief for their children? Even if a parent performed a terrorist act, are the sins of the parents visited on the sons and daughters?”

Except that Hezbollah terror soldiers didn’t die defending their lands or families: they died, and got many innocent people killed, trying to destroy the land of Israel and kill Israeli Jews (and Israeli Palestinians).

Nor do I believe Walud will find that the Roosevelt government tolerated German Americans sending money to the Third Reich to support the orphans of Wehrmacht soldiers killed while overrunning Poland, or killing British soldiers, or American GIs.

That kind of thing isn’t charity, Dawud. It’s politics. And under these circumstances it may even be treason.

And one thing is clear: when Saddam sent $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers, we didn't even call it politics; we called it, correctly, support for terrorism.

Just once I would like to see an article about Ramadan charity that didn’t leave me thinking it was all just a thinly-veiled excuse for buying rockets for murderers.