Raymond Ibrahim on Al-Jazeera, discussing zakat and jihad

Ibrahim, you magnificent bastard...

Can anyone summarize the high points so I don't have to tie up my phone line for 5 hours downloading 20 minutes of video?

"And Raymond, with his fine beard, is looking a bit like a guy who ought himself to get carefully searched in an airport!"

The beard certainly does, but not his eyes, because they reveal a man with a heart of gold. Maybe if he worked on developing a cold, blank stare -- THEN he might be mistaken as a potential threat.

I am sure there are people(cherities) in America who are in need of charity money, why don't the Muslims give to them,Charity starts at home. As Ibrahim say the charity sent by Muslims of USA ends up with Terrorists organizations in the Middle East/Hamas and Pakistan.
undounted,says"Ibrahim,you magnificent bastard".That is a hallmark of Muslims ,when they don't have any thing sensible to say or they are loosing an argument. I wonder if "undounted" is familiar with www.faithfreedom.org Americans have to wake up.

I am sure there are people(cherities) in America who are in need of charity money, why don't the Muslims give to them,Charity starts at home. As Ibrahim say the charity sent by Muslims of USA ends up with Terrorists organizations in the Middle East/Hamas and Pakistan.
undounted,says"Ibrahim,you magnificent bastard".That is a hallmark of Muslims ,when they don't have any thing sensible to say or they are loosing an argument. I wonder if "undounted" is familiar with www.faithfreedom.org Americans have to wake up.

Do not overlook the loaded (and false) comments, simply smuggled in at the beginning by the fast-talking -- in every sense -- Riz Khan, as when he says, for example, that the "seven million or so Muslims in the United States" when he knows perfectly well that there are under 3 million Muslims in America, and two million of them are members of the Nation of Islam and, one suspects, members of the Nation of Islam (Black Muslims) would be willing to contribute to charities, such as the United Way, or the American Red Cross, which real Muslims would not do as fulfilmment of the duty of zakat, for zakat -- as Ibrahim does get a chance to say, thank god, in the last part of the show -- is not "charity" as we non-Muslims undersetand it.

No, "zakat" is what Muslims give to fulfill a religious duty, and it is done, as Ibrahim says, fi sabil Allah, on the path of God, and if this phrase is properly understood, and the central duty required of Muslims to conduct the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles, everywhere, to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, then "zakat" will be seen as what it is: one more instrument of warfare, just as campaigns of Da'wa are not so much intended to save individual souls, but essentially to find recruits to swell the ranks of the Muslims, the Umma, the Army of Islam, and to find them mainly among the most vulnerable populations, whether economically vulnerable (and hence subject to the phony appeal of "social justice" which should make the Muslim poor, who everywhere in Muslim countries endure an economic abyss that separates them from the Muslim rich. And another target of Da'wa are, in the West, the psychically marginal, such as those dim souls who, out of Durkheimian anomie or depression or at the end of their tether in their Spiritual Search and glad to find Islam, which by taking away from them any need to exercise their own moral judgment, and by offering them a Total Belief-System that tells them exaclty what is Haram and what Halal, relieves them of the anguish of being a human being, and actively encourages a habit of mental submission.

"Zakat" is not charity in the Western sense, and Raymond Ibrahim was right to stress that there is a misunderstanding (though he did not add, and perhaps he should, that Muslims know perfectly well, but choose not to reveal, the difference between "zakat" and the Western notion of charity, the objects of which normally are not limited to one group. While there are Christian and Jewish charities that seem, and some are, limited in the objects of charity, a great many of them are not, and one can see, for example, many Jewish charities that aid non-Jewish immigrants -- Hispanic, Chinese, Vietnamese. But there is no attempt by Muslim charities to extensively aid non-Muslims, and I do not know of any Hindus or Christians living in Muslim lands who have received any beneficence from Muslim charities (did the "Holy Land Foundation" or "though it certainly fooled non-Muslims, including some of my own relatives, into thinking they might be giving money to Christians in that Holy Land, ever give a dime even to Arab Christians? What about Kind Hearts? Or Kindercare?

Obmaa, and everyone else in the government, and certainly everyone in the media, ought to stop being fooled by this word "zakat" and come to a clear understanding of its religious function, and the duty of Muslims to support not "the poor" but only "the poor among the Muslims" -- while poor non-Muslims may in fact, traditionally in Muslim lands, have to come up with the Jizyah, the onerous tax on non-Muslims (those that, as ahl al-kitab or "People of the Book," were allowed to stay alive and continue to practice as Christians or Jews) on which the Muslim state so often relied. It's a distinction we should all be keenly aware of, and Ibrahim got in that palpable hit, despite the best efforts of the loaded show, and the execrable Riz Khan, to prevent him from having much of a say.

"Zakat" can also be used to promote Islam -- and it may even be, in order to promote Islam, that here and there some splashy donation might be made. I wonder, for example, if the ten million dollar check that Saudi with the facial tic tried to hand Mayor Giuliani for obvious propagandistic purpooses at a time -- just after 9/11 -- when the Saudis were worried -- would be considered "zakat" because it helped to promote the image of Islam. Or was it merely use of the general "Money Weapon" that is a well-understood and discussed instrument of Jihad?

Too bad no one asked the soft-faced Jennifer Turner, she who is a "researcher" for the new, distinctly unimproved, not-your-grandfather's ACLU, nor the hard-faced Laila Al-Marayati (who is not naive at all, but attempts o make a case that will confuse and distract non-Muslims, and to offer up Muslims as "victims" of a country whose judiciary and security services, we are supposed to believe, has somehow, quite inexplicably and unjustifiably, chosen to interfere with the natural right of Muslims to give to other Muslims, including other Muslims who, of course, are determined to undo Infidel nation-states, their legal and political institutions and social understandings, wherever possible -- for how, given the texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, could it be otherwise?

Despite the stacked deck, Raymond Ibrahim held his own, and offered up a light to shine on the murkiness of "zakat." And next time -- if there is a next time -- he can explain exactly what "zakat" is, and what that other financial instrument so well known, over the past 1350 years, in states ruled by Muslims, that is the "jizyah," is, and how the former was a Muslim-to-Muslim transfer that, among Muslims who have been allowed to settle in the West, behind what they themselves have been taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines of Dar al-Harb, is not always an instrument of pure charity, as we understand that world, but as a political weapon -- just as Hamas and Hezbollah, and many other Muslim terrorist groups, use their "good works" to increase the number of their adherents, and good will even among other Muslim Arabs.

Hugh: Allow me to repost this:

''And another target of Da'wa are, in the West, the psychically marginal, such as those dim souls who, out of Durkheimian anomie or depression or at the end of their tether in their Spiritual Search and glad to find Islam, which by taking away from them any need to exercise their own moral judgment, and by offering them a Total Belief-System that tells them exaclty what is Haram and what Halal, relieves them of the anguish of being a human being, and actively encourages a habit of mental submission.''

Priceless.

And I bet the caller 'Lee', who had to begin his 'question' with a categorical and vicious statement about the Zionist lobby, is one of those who crawled out of his own 'Durkheimian anomie' and tok refuge in the Ummah, or very probably the Nation of Islam. Also worth noting is Riz Khan's utter moral failure to castigate Lee for throwing in such an irrelevant and gratuitous racist comment, but that's par for the rotten course on al-Jazeera, which obviously relishes and gleefully accepts callers like that on a regular basis.

The caller "Lee" in the first video segment (at about 8:05) attempted to "correct" Raymond, claiming that "fee sabeeli Allahi" (in the way/cause of Allah) does not mean fighting or picking up arms. Raymond had, about one minute previously, explained that the phrase can be and is used in Islamic law to refer to military struggle, but also spending (including spending to support military jihad), and devoting oneself in the cause of Allah. Lee claimed that fee sabeeli Allahi "does not mean what the gentleman (Raymond) said," that it literally means "perseverence" in the way of Allah, and "does not mean fighting or picking up arms."

Lee of course is wrong or, at best, misleading. He is definitely wrong that Raymond was wrong. Lee is wrong that fee sabeeli Allahi cannot refer to military jihad or fighting, because the Quran explicitly and approvingly uses q-t-l (fighting, killing, being killed) fee sabeeli Allahi in numerous instances. Perhaps the most notorious is 9:111, ordering Muslims to slay and/or be slain in the way/cause of Allah, and that they are bound by divine contract to do so.

Search "sabeeli" at
http://www.quranbrowser.com/

khalsa, undaunted is not a Muslim apologist. I will leave it to undaunted to explain his choice of words in the initial post.

khalsa,

Thanks for your double-posted observation.

For the record:

1) I'm not a Muslim.

2) I think Raymond Ibrahim is a great writer, scholar, partiot and man.

3) I know about faithfreedom.org. Good site.

Thanks for your concern.

Oops: patriot.

I was surprised at how quickly the caller "Lee" got on and was able to make a comment, apparently without much if any prescreening of his comments. He got on and made a comment about Raymond's use of "fee sabeeli Allahi" only about one minute after Raymond explained what it meant. It's also possible that Lee was already on the line and was going to comment on something else, but reacted at the last minute to add his claims about fee sabeeli Allahi.

I love Raymond's posts here at JihadWatch. Why doesn't he write here anymore?

I loved Raymond's posts here at JihadWatch. Why doesn't he write here anymore?

To djrz,

I understand your situation. Once again, please forgive the type-0s and mispellings, I'm using Notepad with no spell check (who has time to check every word online anymore without the magnificent spoils of the difference machine culture?)

This is what pretty well went on, along with the prior comments above.

BTW, undaunted, my "Ha!" meant exactly what you said:

Ha! First caller dis's Raymond and then blames the Jooooos for shutting down charities, and then has the audacity to posit how the law can be circumvented by quickly starting up and shutting down charities before they can be found out.

Then Jennifer (the first Chick Panelist) pushes the lie that Zakat goes to humanitarian aid, conveniently leaving out the part where it can only go to muslims.

The Third caller immediately blames the Jews and the West for muslim violence (the old "they made me do it" excuse - sheesh, grow TFup). Raymond was quite contained in his response in explaining that if you fund the enemies of your country, it can be "problematic." Like Bruce Campbell says, "Niiiice."

Moriarty, the other chick on the panel, couldn't even bring herself to call Raymond by his name (..the other panelist...) went on about how American muslims have stepped up with the tragedy in Gaza [becaus of the] "siege and the bombings" (no mention of the years of rocket attacks, Gilad Shalit's kidnapping aniversary tommorrow - how many years? - Hamas' genocidal charter and, oh ya, palastinians dancing in the streets after 9/11); and after 7 odd years after 9/11 how muslims really want to help the under privalaged (all those whose lives have been screwed up by islamic sanctioned war) and other americans (other Americans? Really? Does anyone know of an islamic charity that helps non-muslims, in America or anywhere else? Really, I'd like to know)

Moriarty con't: "...muslims are not interested in funding Jihad, they are interested in financing and supporting children who are hungry and need to be educated and women who are hurt (and the homeless)." Really. How many muslim charities out there are funding and supporting day car, providing foster care, women's shelters and soup kitchens?

(on a side note, arn't most muslims in the non-oil rich muslim nations homeless? - unless, if you consider the medieval powerless/unplumbered/unventilatted/unheated/house-shared-with-the-livestock houses homes) (and by "shared," I mean for comunal warmth, not the other thing they have Goat beauty contests for in Yemeni)

And then Raymond nails it when he explains Zakat. I'd wished they kept the camera focused on the other panelists faces when their PC MC liberal house of cards was being blown down by the wind of truth. (well actually, the live editing cued strictly to Raymond when Jennifer's throat started to show signs of distress from uncontrolled swallowing)

Finally, but not for the first time, we see someone (that would be Raymond) who very carefully points out the relativistic approach that the uneducated, which would be the lefties,(my call, politically left, happy in their reich democratic richness, not a care in the world, not an islamic imam forcing sharia law on these shamelessly uncovered infidel whores) apply to a culture they see as harmless.

And then the closer, Raymond's call for transparency. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem? Something muslims just don't understand in their culture of interferance when their control over their religiously sanctioned activities, which fly in the face of the society they live in, brings the hammer down.

Ya, Hammer Time. Well done Raymond.

P.S. The host, Aziz, sets up for the next story after the commercial break - about the retreating ice in the Northern Hemisphere and who should control those territories. WTF. Hello! Don't fuck with the Canadian Inuit, Don't mess with the Russians, and don't screw with the Dutch. Besides, how do you really wear a Burqua with a snowsuit. On the outside, on the inside, I don't know, but what religious accomodations do you have to do for a mosque built in -60 Degree C winters - I mean really, no foot wear in that weather? Crap, now I'm thinkin' about what a Talitobaggan suicide run is gonna look like.

hhmmmpf, some 'charity' in islam. Only for muslims, it is against their laws for it to go to anyone else - I suppose that includes their slaves too. And all those oil rich nations certainly DO NOTHING other than send their 'charity' to jihadists, jihadist families, etc. And they also send their 'charity' to our Western nations to build more mosques and madrassas, and export their wahabbi radical clerics so they can teach more hatred.

muslim 'charity' is equal to the communists in china supporting their military, and us moronic Westerners also supporting both of them.

I notice that going to the youtube for these videos - the comments have been turned off. figures.

The ACLU "researcher" looked like a babe in the woods and repeated all the usual tropes. Al-Marayati looked angry. Maybe she didn't like it when her friends in Gaza got bombed. Possibly they should stop shooting at the Israelis though. Kahn cut that guy from Somalia off pretty quick when he didn't conform the the expected script. But our friend held his own as they tag teamed him from one side with blithering nonsense and from the other with vicious murderous lies. Good show.

nabi ZK (pbum)

Khalsa wrote:

undounted,says"Ibrahim,you magnificent bastard".That is a hallmark of Muslims ,when they don't have any thing sensible to say or they are loosing an argument.
........................

Actually, "Undaunted" (not "undounted") is a well-respected poster here. The comment above *was* rather tongue-in-cheek, but if you look through his old posts, you will find many thoughtful and insightful comments.

I think what Raymond said is right because he has clearly mentioned how Muslims use Zakaaiy. All American and Western charity organisations don't check whether we are muslims or non-muslims when we are in need of help. See how much Americans and Europeans spent on Tnsunami.

See my own observations on the Zakat, law-wise.

According to all but the Hanbali schools Zakat must be distributed equally to the eight authorized categories of recipients, which include those those fighting for Allah.... in Islamic military operations.

That is, by Islamic law 12.5% of Zakat must go to offensive Jihad....

http://thebattleoftours.blogspot.com/2009/08/charitys-good-right-well-if-its-zakat.html

re: zonie kafir comment about ACLU spokesperson being a babe in the woods. Send her to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc, and she would become the babe for several men at a time.

for her trouble she would probably be arrested and jailed for being their rape babe.

http://sansad.org/Sansad/files/mai.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Lindhout

But true to form the ACLU spoke only of unidentified sources, Muslims she has spoken to, and their "feelings" and beliefs, that they are somehow being deprived of their religious rights, by having the charities scrutinized.
They speak of how Muslim charities can be shut down and have their assets frozen on the whim of a Treasury Agent's investigation. However they fail to show how this supposed power is being abused. They can only cite 7 cases in 8 years where Muslim charities were pursued for supporting terrorism. This is not exactly government gone wild.
The caller was right, when he suggested that the Muslim charities should operate like criminal enterprises, open and shut down, prior to the point that the authorities can muster an investigation. Unfortunately, a federal investigation takes undue time to muster a response, by then the suicide vest has been made, used, and the proud family has been compensated by the charity's $ for their son's demise serving Jihad. Meanwhile groups like the ACLU will delay and defeat legitimate investigations, insuring more money will go to create more innocent victims. And our President will react by hamstringing and prosecuting the investigators most likely at the behest of those he would bow down to and kiss the hand of those that would cut ours off.

The point that a percentage of the zakat goes to military jihad fighting is, I think, the strong point of Raymond's presentation.

However, regarding the point about Muslims not being permitted to give to non-Muslims through zakat, Islam apologists are likely to raise the point that Muslims can give to non-Muslims through voluntary charity (see below). This weakens the seemingly straightforward Muslims-can't-give-zakat-to-non-Muslims point quite a bit. It seems to me that more research would have to be done on the Islamic conditions and restrictions on this "voluntary charity," in light of the statements found in Islamic core texts (e.g., the Quran's 28:86, an admonishment to "never help" the disbelievers), in Islamic law, Islamic history, and present-day statistics on Muslims' charity viz. the "giving to non-Muslims" issue.

Result 89 from 227
The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK H: ZAKAT >> Chapter H-8.0: Giving Zakat to Deserving Recipients

H-8.24
It is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim, or to someone whom one is obliged to support (def: m-12.1), such as a wife or family member.

Result 92 from 227
The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK H: ZAKAT >> Chapter H-9.0: Voluntary Charity

H-9.7
(O: It is permissible to give charity to a person not in need, or to a relative of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). It is offensive for a person not in need to accept charity, and preferable that he avoid it. It is unlawful for such a person to accept it if he pretends to be needy, and is unlawful for him to ask for charity. It is permissible to give charity to a non-Muslim (n: but not zakat, as above at h-8.24). )

http://www.muhaddith.org/cgi-bin/e_optns.exe
(clear the text boxes there before entering search terms)

Kinana,

What's the Arabic word for "charity" in that citation from Reliance of the Traveller, H-9.7 ?

Freedom FROM religion is most important as far as I'm concerned.
There was so much wrong with the people in these video's, I got so frustrated. Offff! First of all, let me just say that Raymond was the only person in these video's who made sense, second of all, Jennifer Turner sounded like she was almost crying and looked like a deer caught in the headlights of a car. She is afraid of something or she knows that she is telling lies???

I was glad that Raymond, at the end of the video, made some points I wanted to make aswel. Zakat is NOT for unbelievers, so isn't that in violation of American (And Western) laws? Discriminating against people because of their religion or lack there of? I believe so. But nooo, the muslims have the perception of being singled out. I'm sorry to say this to you (muslims) lads, but perception is not important. It's all about FACTS and there is NO evidence that you (muslims) are being singled out because you are muslim. Maybe it is because of aiding massmurderers huh?

Ps: Those two ladies should be ashamed of themselves!

"I was surprised at how quickly the caller "Lee" got on and was able to make a comment, apparently without much if any prescreening of his comments. He got on and made a comment about Raymond's use of "fee sabeeli Allahi" only about one minute after Raymond explained what it meant. It's also possible that Lee was already on the line and was going to comment on something else, but reacted at the last minute to add his claims about fee sabeeli Allahi.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar"

I was surprised that they got callers because everytime it said: RECORDED.
They recorded the discussion, then broadcast it, yet they ask for callers and chatters?! How the hell is that even possible? How can someone call into a show to comment about what is being said, when it was recorded and not live broadcast?!

//////////////////////////////////////

"Don't fuck with the Canadian Inuit, Don't mess with the Russians, and don't screw with the Dutch.

Posted by: Kaffir_Kanuck"

Thanks for your support about do not screw with the Dutch, but we don't live too far up north like the Inuit do. =P
Still thanks though! =D

Sic,

The show seems to have been done, initially, live, with callers, but what we see in the video is a recording of the initial show. At about 1:48 of the first video, Riz Khan says "You can join our conversation with your questions and comments" by logging onto the livestation.com chatroom "and we'll also take your phone calls to the show." He makes essentially the same message at 11:20.

Not that this matters too much--it just seemed odd to me that "Lee" got on so quick to comment on "what the gentleman [Raymond] just explained" about fee sabeeli Allahi. Normally phone-in shows have a prescreening process where you have to explain to the editors or producers what you are going to say before you get on the air and say it.

Hesp,

The general term for charity is sadaqa (or sadaqah). I don't know for sure, but would assume, that the term used in "The Reliance" is probably sadaqa or some compound of sadaqa and some other more specific term. From what I've read on other authoritative-looking sites like Islam-Online, there appears to be a mainstream view that Muslims can give to non-Muslims through voluntary charity (sadaqa), provided that this giving is fi sabil Allah, in the cause of Allah, i.e., must be beneficial or at least not harmful to Islam. (In other words, there are "Islamic strings attached" to the giving; it is not altruistic).