by Raymond Ibrahim<\/p>\n
Middle East Forum<\/em><\/p>\n Recently, Cathy Lynn Grossman of\u00a0USA Today<\/em>\u00a0wrote an\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0about Muslim\u00a0zakat<\/em>, wherein I was referenced as a “critic of Islam.” She then followed up with another article titled “Critic questions the aims and ends of Islamic charity<\/a>,” dedicated to examining my views on\u00a0zakat<\/em>.<\/p>\n While I appreciate Ms. Grossman’s initiative, what especially interests me is that her response exemplifies the problems originally highlighted in my article, “The Dark Side of Zakat: Islamic Charity in Context<\/a>,” which Ms. Grossman takes to task.<\/p>\n I had written: “From what American schoolchildren are being\u00a0taught<\/a>\u00a0by their teachers to what Americans are being told by their presidents, concepts unique to Islam are nowadays almost always ‘Westernized.’\u2026 [T]his phenomenon has resulted in epistemic (and thus endemic) failures, crippling Americans from objectively understanding some of Islam’s more troublesome doctrines.”<\/p>\n It is, therefore, a bit ironic that Ms. Grossman’s entire article is a testimony to this phenomenon. For starters, even though I indicated Muslims are actuallyforbidden<\/a>\u00a0from bestowing\u00a0zakat<\/em>\u00a0onto non-Muslims, her opening sentence stubbornly describes\u00a0zakat<\/em>\u00a0as a “mandate to be charitable.” Surely “charity” that discriminates according to religion cannot be deemed all that “charitable,” a word that, in a Western context, is connotative of universal beneficence.<\/p>\n Ms. Grossman is also decided that Muslims engaged in that timeless Islamic phrase\u00a0fi sabil Allah\u00a0<\/em>\u2014 most literally, “the path of Allah” \u2014 include “anyone from seminary students to imams to missionaries”; conversely, I supposedly read it “as a straight pipeline to violent jihadists.”<\/p>\n Fair enough. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to the significance of Islamic terminology, neither her opinion nor mine matters much; how Islam’s authoritative schools of jurisprudence (specifically, the four\u00a0madhahib<\/em>) have interpreted\u00a0fi sabil Allah<\/em>\u00a0is all that matters. And Islam’s juridical rulings are such that\u00a0fi sabil Allah<\/em>\u00a0is synonymous with the concept of violent jihad.<\/p>\n For example, in its section on\u00a0zakat<\/em>, the Arabic-English edition of the standard legal text,\u00a0‘Umdat as-Salik<\/a>, translates\u00a0fi sabil Allah<\/em>\u00a0as “those fighting for Allah.” Next to the index entry for\u00a0fi sabil Allah<\/em>, it simply says “see jihad.”<\/p>\n The following\u00a0zakat<\/em>-related anecdote from Islamic history is further illuminating: After Muhammad’s death in 632, several Arab tribes, while still identifying themselves as Muslims, refused to pay\u00a0zakat<\/em>, much of which was being used to fund ongoing military operations. Abu Bakr, the first “righteous” caliph, responded by launching the Apostasy Wars, which claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Arabs. In this context, neither the uses of\u00a0zakat<\/em>, nor Abu Bakr’s murderous response, seem very “charitable.” (Who ever heard of killing people for not being “charitable” enough?)<\/p>\n As a result, the same canon of Islamic law (the Sharia) that unequivocally forbids Muslims from giving\u00a0zakat<\/em>\u00a0(financial assistance) to non-Muslims, advocates giving it to what we call “jihadists.” This is a simple fact, playedover<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0over<\/a>\u00a0again \u2014 not my opinion, nor something that is “open to interpretation.”<\/p>\n Ms. Grossman’s concluding questions are further indicative of the widespread tendency to recast Muslim concepts into Western terms. She asks the reader: “Do you think believers may support those ‘in the path of Allah’ in a religious sense, just as Christians might support missionaries evangelizing for Christ? Or do you read that as code for nefarious purposes?”<\/p>\n Aside from the fact that \u2014 alas, and once again \u2014 what any of us “think” is totally irrelevant, these questions demonstrate the all too common inability to transcend one’s own culturally-ingrained notions of right and wrong, ascribing to them a universal pedigree. For just as Ms. Grossman’s Western sensibilities inform her that\u00a0zakat<\/em>, which has to do with giving money, must always be “charitable,” so too do they inform her that funding violence, jihadi or otherwise, must always be “nefarious.”<\/p>\n Yet she may be surprised to discover that men such as Osama bin Laden actually see their jihad \u2014 yes, with all the death and destruction entailed \u2014 as an act of altruism, as an ugly means to a beneficent end (see Koran 2:216), that is, the establishment of Islamic law across the world (which is, incidentally, another Muslim duty). One of the most renowned Muslim clerics and hero of modern day jihadists, Ibn Taymiyya, has written at great length describing jihad as the ultimate expression of “love.” And, at any rate, it seems a safe bet that most Muslims will be inclined to adhere to his opinions, i.e., his\u00a0fatwas<\/em>, as opposed to Ms. Grossman’s casual thoughts on the matter.<\/p>\n The lesson here? Well-meaning Americans would do well to cease interpreting age-old Muslim doctrines \u2014 from jihad to\u00a0zakat<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 according to their Western epistemology and instead rely on the standard rulings of mainstream Islam, as articulated by its authoritative schools of jurisprudence. That is, after all, what Muslims do.<\/p>\n