Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Blood money (Regarding US crackdown on Muslim Charitable Orgs)

Expand Messages
  • Islamic News and Information Network
    Assalamu alaikum, Blood money In its pursuit of the money trail of the terrorists, the US risks sacrificing civil liberties on the altar of the battle
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 5, 2001

      Blood money

      In its pursuit of the "money trail" of the terrorists, the US risks
      sacrificing civil liberties on the altar of the battle against terrorism,
      Omayma Abdel-Latif reports


      It is business as usual in the Karachi office of Al-Rasheed Trust. A week
      ago, US President George Bush ordered a freeze on the assets of the trust
      in US and Pakistani banks. The US claims the trust has links to the
      Taliban. Yet the office is still open, the trust still receiving those in
      need of help. "I don't understand why they have done this," said Abu
      Abdallah, who was in charge of the office when Al-Ahram Weekly called on
      Monday. "We deal mostly in zakat (alms): money that goes to the needy and
      the destitute," he said. Abu Abdallah, who joined the trust little more
      than a year ago explained that the offices in Pakistan provide bread for
      over 300,000 Afghani refugees, every day. "These people are disabled,
      fatherless, children, widows. How will they survive?" he asked.

      Afghan refugees will surely suffer when Muslim charity organisations are
      forced to stop supplying food and medicine. But it also raises the
      question of whether humanitarian groups do indeed funnel money to
      terrorist groups. Al-Rasheed Trust was one of three Muslim charity
      organisations whose assets were frozen by US order.

      Muslim charities financed by zakat money and huge donations from Gulf
      states, have mushroomed. This efflorescence has been part of a worldwide
      growth in the number of NGOs working for poverty relief. But the charities
      were also created to help Muslims around the world who suffered
      persecution: whether in Bosnia and Kosovo, Chechnya and Kashmir, or in
      Palestine. But while some of these organisations continue to serve a
      worthy cause, others have become the Muslim version of the "charities"
      that provided the Irish Republican Army with so much succour.

      And here lies the rub. Many observers fear that the US, in its headlong
      rush to dam the "terrorist's lifeblood" will constrict the activities of
      genuine (and much-needed) charities, particularly those of an Islamic hue.
      Political science professor Hassan Nafaa has noted that the clamps have
      mainly been applied to charities and organisations that are Islamic, or
      support Islamic causes, such as Haraket Al-Mujahedin in Kashmir. "If the
      US was keen on uprooting terrorism in its different forms and colours,
      then it is advised to address other charity organisations which, for
      example, support and finance Zionist terrorist organisations, too," Nafaa
      said. Many Arabs and Muslims indeed worry that the US will not apply its
      controls consistently. They fear that after the US attacks its "most
      wanted list" it will move to those charities that offer humanitarian
      support to the Palestinians suffocating under the Israeli occupation.

      Hamdi Abdel-Azim, deputy head of Al- Sadat Academy, who authored a book on
      money laundering in the Middle East, told the Weekly that the US fight
      against terrorists' money, significantly invokes item no. 7 of the UN
      charter, which calls for sanctions on any countries which do not comply
      with US efforts. "The decision has therefore taken on an international
      legitimacy." Abdel-Azim said. That means that the US must provide
      compelling evidence for any freeze it wants. In the case of Egypt, the US
      would need to comply with law no 205 (1990), which deals with bank account
      privacy. "The Egyptian government could only provide information on a
      suspect account holder provided that the foreign government presents valid
      evidence that the client in question is involved in terrorism," Abdel-Azim
      explained. Egypt, he added, did freeze the assets of Osama Bin Laden in
      the National Bank of Egypt after the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in
      Kenya and Tanzania.

      But legal niceties aside, many question the entire premise of the US
      campaign against charities. According to money laundering experts, it will
      be next to impossible to trace terrorist money trails. It is estimated
      that a third of the money funnelled to militant Islamic groups originates
      in the US. Other money goes through France, Germany and Britain, making it
      fiendishly hard to track. Nevertheless, this week, Britain ordered a
      freeze on $88m worth of assets. France froze some ff23m and Germany froze
      $1.2 million worth of suspect accounts.

      Several Islamic charities based in Geneva have expressed concern over
      remarks linking them to terrorists, with the Geneva- based Dar Al-Mal
      Al-Islami (Islamic Capital House) issuing a stern rebuttal. Police have
      also investigated several branches of Arab banking associations in
      Switzerland, which was heavily pressured to disclose details of secret
      bank accounts and eventually collaborated with the US. Banks in the Gulf
      were also targeted.

      A greater obstacle to producing a clear picture of the terrorists' wealth
      is that the terrorist attack, spectacular as it was, cost very little. US
      sources estimate the entire plot cost a mere $200,000. Such scant money
      could be kept at a low profile. As a result, Abdel-Azim thinks the
      economic war on terrorists is something of a mirage. "It is like the war
      on drug barons or the Mafia. Most of these organisations don't have many
      assets in US banks anyway."

      Humanitarian relief efforts and civil liberties are bound to suffer. An
      Arab analyst writing in the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper this week
      worried that the US would support "regimes against their oppositions and
      turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, thus doing away with democratic
      values, which will remain the privilege of the West." Those fears are
      given substance by anti-terrorism legislation under consideration in
      Congress. "The impact on civil liberties of certain groups and individuals
      will be severe," Jeanne Butterfield, the executive director of the
      American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), told Al-Ahram Weekly,
      from Washington. The problem, Butterfield explained, is that the
      definition of terrorist activity would be very broad. "It could include
      giving a donation to a humanitarian project of a group that is listed on
      the official State Department list of 'terrorist organisations'. Of
      course, the majority of those organisations are Arab or Muslim."

      Britain already amended its laws with the Terrorism Act of 2000, which
      went into effect in February. The law deals with terrorist property, fund
      raising and money launderin, making it an offence to receive money for
      terrorist use. Many observers believe that the law was issued to monitor
      and restrict the activities of many of the Islamic groups and individuals
      who have sought asylum in the UK.

      But some shrugged off fears. London- based Egyptian Islamist militant
      Yasser El- Serry, who has been convicted of involvement in a failed
      assassination attempt on former prime minister Atef Sidki, told the Weekly
      via a teleophone interview that he does not believe his organisation, Al-
      Marsad Al-Islami (Islamic Monitor) or any other Islamic organisation will
      be targeted, since they are all law-abiding. "We are protected by the law
      in this country: Britain. This is America's war against Islam."

      He referred to the case of Adel Abdel- Maguid, who is detained in Britain.
      The US asked for the extradition of Abdel-Maguid, but Britain refused,
      based on lack of evidence. But contrary to El-Serry's view, Butterfield
      believes that the US and other Western countries often turn a blind eye to
      human rights abuses when they need the support of certain regimes.

      The perception that politics is put before principle may explain the
      backlash against the US hunt for the terrorists' financiers. Abu Abdallah
      of Al-Rasheed Trust told the Weekly that the office in Karachi has
      received more cash than ever before. "People sympathise with the Afghan
      plight." "It is also a sign of complete disrespect for American
      decisions," he added. He also said Al- Rasheed Trust would take the US
      president to the International Court and is currently negotiating with the
      Pakistani government to unfreeze its assets. "We believe we are innocent,
      and what we are doing is right. We help our brothers not only in
      Afghanistan but also in Palestine, Kosovo, and Bosnia. These are not
      terrorists. These are Muslims. But to America it seems all Muslims are
      terrorists. But we don't care what it thinks, because," said Abdallah,
      "America is not our God."

      ININ List Archives Found Here: http://www.egroups.com/messages/inin
      To subscribe please e-mail majordomo@...
      In the body type: "subscribe inin-net"

      To unsubscribe please e-mail majordomo@...
      In the body type in: "unsubscribe inin-net"



      "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was
      not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not
      speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the
      Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for
      me, and there was no one left to speak for me." - Pastor Martin Niemoller
      regarding the Nazi reign.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.