|
The Fallout of “anti-terrorism” policies
on Muslim charities
On December 8, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union released a new report - , "Worlds Apart: How Deporting Immigrants After September 11 Tore Families Apart and Shattered Communities," - documenting the devastating effects that the Bush administration’s "anti-terrorism" policies have had on immigrant families and communities.
The report also enumerated impact of these policies on the Muslim charities in America:
The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a New York-based Muslim charity that offers its clients a range of social services, used to feed as many as 400 hungry people a week in its soup kitchens. These days, it’s lucky if it can manage food for 150. Plans to build another shelter have been put on hold indefinitely, as have plans to hire new employees for its family counseling program. Before Sept. 11, 2001, donations to the charity aver-aged over $4 million year. Today ICNA gets less than half of that.
At the Islamic Center of Jersey City, director Ahmed Shedeed estimates that “95 to 100 percent” of its operating budget comes from donations. Since the 9/11 attacks, he said, charitable contributions have dropped “dramatically.”
Both organizations are part of a significant and unexpected fallout from the war on terrorism: Afraid that they may be fingered for supporting terrorist organizations, people have quit donating money to legitimate Muslim charities the problem is not just that charitable organizations need money to continue serving their clients. Muslims have a religious obligation to give zakat — charitable donations.
The government’s recent indictment of the Holy Land Foundation is further proof to community members that an innocent charitable donation can have serious consequences. In January 2004, the Senate Finance Committee asked the INS to turn over confidential records — including donor names — of 24 Muslim charities and foundations.
“I don’t think that people have doubts about our organization,” said ICNA’s executive director, Muhammad Rahman. “But they feel that once they give to us, they are open for any questions, any investigations [by the government]” People are so afraid, he added, that they have even quit coming to the regular fundraising meetings the organization holds to inform donors of charitable work.
Many local mosques refer worshipers in need of social services — from food to rent money to legal aid — to ICNA, Rahman said. The demand for such services spiked with the detentions that followed the 9/11 attacks and special registration. At the same time, the drop in donations has meant that the charity has less to give.
“In 2002, we could have paid up to $5,000 for a lawyer. We could even match that amount for an emergency rental,” said Adem Carroll, the organization’s relief coordinator. “Now, we’re paying $400 incrementally to keep [clients] from being evicted.”
“The community has been in a great deal of limbo, because [there is] no standard established for what would constitute materi-al support of terrorism,” said LaDale George, a Chicago attorney who represents Muslim charities across the country. “The Islamic community needs that standard.”
Money that used to go to large national or international organizations is going instead to smaller, local projects, George said. But recently, government investigations have also been focusing more closely on local mosques and imams. “As a result, [donors are] concerned that any involvement will bring you under scrutiny,” he said. People have also stopped giving to local organizations, “because they don’t want to be viewed as supporting anti-American sentiment in the US.
Some organizations, including ICNA, have approached the federal government about establishing a seal of approval or a list of standards, to reassure donors that charitable organizations are legitimate — and that contributions to an approved organization won’t put donors under scrutiny. So far, no such standards have been established; a Treasury Department spokeswoman was unable to say whether such a plan is in the works.
“That is one of the largest challenges that we face,” said the treasury official, who asked not to be identified. “[We want] to make sure that charitable giving continues,” she said. “But if there is any evidence of legitimate concern that the funds are going to nefarious purposes to support terrorist organizations, we will do all we can to make sure it doesn’t happen.”
She points potential donors to the list of ”specially designated nationals,” posted on the Treasury Department Web site (http://www.treasury.gov/offices/eotffc/ofac/ sdn/t11sdn.pdf), which includes a range of people and organizations deemed by the government to be bad news: “drug kingpins, money launderers, terror financiers, people who are undermining the democratic process in Zimbabwe.” But the list only tells donors where not to give; it provides no guidance for potential donors seeking clean organizations. And the lists are infamous for their errors; many charities on the list have challenged their designation, saying the accusations of connections to terror organizations are completely false.
In any case, not all Muslim organizations agree with the idea of government approval. Ahmed Shedeed of the Islamic Center of Jersey City said that he did not need the government or anyone else to prove what he already knows, that is, that his charity is legitimate.
But ICNA’s Rahman hopes that some system — or at least some form of assurance — is in place by the month of Ramadan (mid-October this year), a traditional time for Muslims to make charitable donations.
|
