Walid Shoebat, a former radical Muslim terrorist, and now a traveling Christian preacher, talks about the hidden agenda of Barack Obama’s Zakat plan to overthrow the U.S. and Israel in order to usher in his New World Order and Islamic Sharia Law. You can listen to his 3 part message on July 11, 2010 at Pastor Bill’s website: http://www.calvarychapelofhonolulu.com/audio/podcasts/index.php?p=home .

The following are two more articles from the web, concerning this hidden agenda:

Obama’s Zakat Vow Raises Troubling Questions

by IPT News   Jun 9, 2009 at 11:17 am


Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy raises some important questions about a part of President Obama’s speech in Cairo last week that has drawn little attention.

Obama claimed rules on charitable giving were making it difficult for American Muslims to satisfy the religious obligation of charity known as zakat and he promised to work “with American Muslims to ensure that they can.” This simply isn’t true.

American law, enacted in 1995 by an executive order by President Clinton and further entrenched by Congress a year later, makes it illegal to provide support to any entity designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. government. The laws do nothing to restrict donations to relief agencies that haven’t been so designated.

To be convicted of a criminal violation, McCarthy notes, prosecutors must prove that the defendant knew the money would go to the terrorist organization’s benefit. That’s what happened in the case of five former officials at the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). A week before the Obama speech, a federal judge in Dallas sentenced two former directors 65-year prison terms for routing $12 million to Hamas through a series of charities controlled by the terrorist group.

HLF had been considered the nation’s largest Muslim charity before being shut down in 2001 for its Hamas support. It is one of the examples some Muslim activists cite of the government interfering with zakat.

But those laws, McCarthy says, merely stop American dollars from flowing to those who work against American interests and restrict no donations to groups which do not support terrorists:

“Do we really have ‘rules on charitable giving’ that, as the president claims, make it especially difficult for Muslims — as opposed to others — to give? No. What we have are federal laws against material support for terrorism. These were enacted by Congress in 1996. They have been the bedrock of the DOJ’s anti-terrorism enforcement ever since.

The purpose of these laws is obvious, as has been the stepped-up effort to use them since 9/11. If we are going to prevent terrorist strikes from happening, rather than content ourselves with prosecuting any surviving terrorists after our fellow citizens have been murdered and maimed, we have to identify cells and choke off their resources before attacks can be planned and executed. Thus, a donor who gives to an organization, including an ostensible charity, that he knows to have been formally designated as a terrorist entity under U.S. law, or that he knows facilitates terrorist activity, is liable.”

Those laws were enacted for a reason. Terrorist groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad engaged in vicious bombing campaigns to thwart American-led peace efforts. Clinton’s order called it “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.”

As this administration starts a new push to settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, anything that facilitates sending money to charities tied to terrorists would be beyond counter productive. It would be inviting the next wave of terror

The Dark Side of Zakat Muslim “Charity” in Context

by Raymond Ibrahim   Pajamas Media   August 15, 2009


From what American schoolchildren are being taught by their teachers to what Americans are being told by their presidents, concepts unique to Islam are nowadays almost always “Westernized.” Whether the product of naivety, arrogance, or downright disingenuousness, this phenomenon has resulted in epistemic (and thus endemic) failures, crippling Americans from objectively understanding some of Islam’s more troublesome doctrines.

A typical seventh-grade textbook, for instance, teaches that “jihad represents the human struggle to overcome difficulties and do things that are pleasing to God. Muslims strive to respond positively to personal difficulties as well as worldly challenges. For instance, they might work to be better people, reform society, or correct injustice.”

Strictly speaking, this is by and large true. However, by not explaining what it means to be “better people, reform society, or correct injustice” — from a distinctly Islamic, as opposed to Western, perspective — the textbook abandons students to fall back on their own (misleading) interpretations.

Yet the facts remain: In Islam, killing certain “evil-doers,” such as apostates or homosexuals, is a way of “correcting injustice”; overthrowing manmade constitutional orders (such as the United States) and replacing them with Sharia mandates, and subjugating women and non-Muslims, are ways of “reforming society.” Those enforcing all this are, in fact, “better people” — indeed, according to the Koran, they are “the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong [3:110],” that is, ruling according to Sharia law.

So it is with the Muslim concept of zakat, a word often rendered into English as “charity.” But is that all zakat is — mere Muslim benevolence by way of feeding and clothing the destitute of the world, as the word “charity” all too often connotes?

U.S. president Barack Hussein Obama seems to think so — or, given his background, is at least banking that others do — based on his recent proclamation to the Muslim world that “in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”

Thus does Obama conflate a decidedly Islamic concept, zakat, with the generic notion of charity. Is this justified? As with all things Islamic, one must first examine the legal aspects of zakat to truly appreciate its purport. Etymologically related to the notion of “purity,” zakat — paying a portion of one’s wealth to specifically designated recipients — is a way of purifying oneself, on par with prayers (see Koran 9:103).

The problem, however, has to do with who is eligible for this mandatory “charity.” Most schools of Muslim jurisprudence are agreed to eight possible categories of recipients — one of these being those fighting “in the path of Allah,” that is, jihadis, also known as “terrorists.”

In fact, financially supporting jihadis is a recognized form of jihad — jihad al-mal; even the vast majority of militant verses in the Koran (e.g., 9:20, 9:41, 49:15, 61:10-11) prioritize the need to fund the jihad over merely fighting in it, as fighting with one’s wealth often precedes fighting with one’s self. Well-known Islamists — from international jihadi Osama bin Laden to authoritative cleric Sheikh Qaradawi — are well aware of this and regularly exhort Muslims to fund the jihad via zakat.

More revealing of the peculiarly Islamic nature of zakat is the fact that Muslims are actually forbidden from bestowing this “charity” onto non-Muslims (e.g., the vast majority of American infidels). “Charitable” Muslim organizations operating on American soil are therefore no mere equivalents to, say, the Salvation Army, a Christian charity organization whose “ministry extends to all, regardless of ages, sex, color, or creed.” In Islam, creed is a major criterion for receiving “charity” — not to mention for receiving social equality.

From here, one can better understand Obama’s lament that “in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation,” a statement that unwittingly implies that American zakat has, in fact, been used to fund the jihad. After all, these irksome “rules” to which Obama alludes appear to be a reference to the presumably “excessive” scrutiny American Muslim “charities” are subject to by law enforcement. Yet this scrutiny is itself a direct byproduct of the fact that American Muslim “charities” have, indeed, been funding the jihad, both at home and abroad.

In light of all this, what truly remains to be seen is how, precisely, Obama plans on “working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”