WaPo Article Washes Away the Taint of Terrorism from Islamic Charity

Hewing to the narrative that everything's hunky-dory when it comes to Islam and Muslims, the Washington Post crafts a rapturous account of America's largest Muslim charity. Trouble is, the paper fails to do any due diligence--or, at the very least, conduct a cursory Google search--re these religion-of-peace "do-gooders." Had the WaPo bothered to do so, it would have discovered that the charity is said to have some pretty unsavory ties--to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

But, hey, as in the case of the Clinton Foundation, which undoubtedly does some good works too, why accentuate the negative when you can simply eliminate it (for the sake of toeing the line re "diversity," multiculturalism, social justice and rest of the "progressive" malarkey)?

Update: Re the Islamic concept of charity, this ROP entry is most illuminating:

Charity is technically an important part of Islam, but this does not mean that it is defined as Westerners generally understand it. In Christianity, charity means giving to your fellow man in need. In Islam, it means giving either to support holy war or to a fellow Muslim - and usually through the mandated poor tax (zakat) which is precisely calculated. As Robert Spencer puts it, "Islam makes a distinction between believers and unbelievers that overrides any obligation to general benevolence."

The zakat (almsgiving) may be one of the five pillars of Islam, but the Hadith only speaks of it as a requirement to help fellow Muslims ("taken from among you and distributed among you"). Non-Muslims are not entitled to the zakat by virtue of their need, and mainstream Islamic teaching forbids Muslims to give this to unbelievers. The website TheZakat.org, for example, lists unbelievers along with the wealthy, strong and healthy as being prohibited from receiving zakat (although some Muslims may personally disagree with this).

While Islamic scholars forbid giving zakat to non-Muslims in physical need - including the victims of Islamic terror - it is acceptable to use zakat in defense of accused Muslim terrorists.

Interestingly, the Quranic verse that is said to be the basis for zakat (9:103) comes from the most violent and intolerant of suras. Its context also appears to be that of a penance taken from the property of 'hypocrites' for their sinfulness and failure to participate in battle against unbelievers.

Islamic charities that raise funds openly in the West are savvy enough to downplay the fact that beneficiaries of their assistance are selected by ethnicity, which would not go over well with non-Muslim donors. They are also known to advertise "window dressing" projects on their websites or literature, in which they claim a role in prominent disasters or causes (in disproportion to their actual contribution or concern). It is usually enough to fool others into not looking deeper.

Generally speaking, international Islamic charities are better known for funding terrorism and hate than in meeting the actual needs of natural disaster victims (bankrolling Jihad through charitable giving is mandated by the Quran 9:60). In 2014, the UAE determined that fifteen well-known Muslim charities - including the world's largest - were actually sponsoring Islamic terrorism.

Even at its most legitimate, Muslim charity to the poor is heavily tainted by ulterior political and racial agenda, such as lopsided support for Palestinians to the exclusion of Darfur victims, who suffer much worse. The latter are also Muslim, but they don't count since they are Africans oppressed by an Islamic-Arab regime. (The rule is that Muslims generally ignore the suffering of other Muslims unless non-Muslims can be held responsible).