As has often been noted, jihad — violence against the infidel for the purpose of spreading Islam — is just one of the tactics used by Muslims to Islamize the infidel world. Various forms of “stealth jihad” supplement and support terrorism as a means of extending Islam’s reach.
Zakat, the religiously-mandated giving of alms, is one such supporting function. Islamic scripture and tradition require that charitable giving be used for the support of violent jihad, in addition to the more mundane eleemosynary functions.
It’s hard to fight this process. Who, after all, objects to charitable organizations?
Every time a Western prosecutor goes up against a Muslim “charity”, the deck is stacked against him due to our intuitive misconception of what an Islamic charitable organization must be like. Add to this the routine dissimulation of Muslims (which is also required by scripture and tradition), and you arrive at the toxic situation we face today: large amounts of money used to fund terrorism flow through the world’s banking systems in accounts maintained by Islamic “charities”.
Our European correspondent Lexington was prompted by Zenster’s comment on the April 15th news feed to compose the following concise account of zakat and Islamic banking:
Zakat (alms, charity) is required of all Moslems, being one of the five pillars of Islam. These alms are to be paid in proportion to the wealth and property of the individual Moslem.
Those for whom this charity collection is intended, and the purposes to which the alms are to be put, are designated by the Koran (9:60):
1. The poor 2. Those who collect these alms 3. To attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam) (Da’wa) 4. To free those in captivity 5. For those in debt 6. For “Allah’s Cause” (i.e. for Majahidun, those fighting in holy battle, Jihad) 7. For the wayfarer
Thus, monies collected for alms in Islam (and this includes all Islamic “charities” and all Islamic institutions which must give a portion of their collections and/or profits to “zakat”) are, indeed, used to fund terrorism, and this is specifically required by the Koran (though stated as “holy battle” and not terrorism).
This fact further enlarges upon and strongly supports the contention of those who consider Islam to be primarily a political ideology, and not a theology.
It also helps to explain why any businesses and financial institutions that engage in and offer Sharia Compliant Finance run the risk of legal action as conduits and intermediaries in funding terrorism and sedition (There is also, of course, another issue: da’wa, by encouraging non-Moslems to acquiesce to Shariah, is a form of sedition, the aim of which, through the inequality of Sharia as a jurisprudence, is to overthrow a nation’s laws and government).
– – – – – – – – –
For more information, see this Shariah Finance study (pdf) from the Center for Security Policy
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Islam is essentially seditious, because it lays the groundwork within the “theological framework” of one of its “five pillars” for the violent overthrow of governments and societies.
Jihad is a tactic to achieve an Islamic world under Shariah. To deflect criticism, Moslems always fall back on that one weak hadith describing it as an “inner struggle”, but zakat, with its instruction to use some of the alms collected “in the cause of Allah” (a term which is always meant in the Koran and ahadith as waging war, jihad, etc) squarely implicates Islam as seditious, violent, and a danger to all non-Moslem societies.
Highlighting zakat is a way of hoisting Moslems with their own petard through one of their “five pillars”. It also exposes those Moslems who call themselves “moderate”, because Moslems are fully aware of the purposes to which zakat is to be put; they cannot plead ignorance.
Also, all Islamic charities, all financial institutions offering sharia banking services can be regarded as legally complicit in the destruction of their societies by virtue of deliberately intended use of zakat for seditious purposes.
I believe a good case can be made, especially after Geert Wilders’ speech in Florida, for pushing the contention that Islam is a political ideology that must be proscribed.