Who among us does not know the Domino’s Pizza jingle? It is hard to find anyone who does not know it. The same can be said of any of the other global fast food chains that have proliferated around the world. On the other hand, it is equally difficult to find someone who does know that the American billionaire who founded Domino’s Pizza, Tom Monaghan, donates a considerable portion of his wealth to various Catholic charities and institutions. He has founded a number of Catholic schools and missionary colleges as well as a Christian broadcasting station. He has contributed heavily to the Church’s activities in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. In spite of this, has anyone ever accused him of financing extremism?

I visited the UNESCO headquarters in Khartoum a few years back and was surprised to see displayed on the wall a picture showing the Catholic Pope holding up a cross with one hand while placing his other on the head of a little African boy. UNESCO is supposed to be an international humanitarian agency and not a Christian one. However, who is going to muster up the courage to object?

Once, while visiting with Somali refugees in Kenya, I encountered an employee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) distributing copies of the bible in Somali at various food centers for pregnant women and children.

I asked his Somali co-worker: “How can this be going on under the auspices of an international agency?”

He replied in a whisper: “Be quiet, or he will give you a copy of the Bible in Arabic!”

I do not wish to speak here at length about Christian missionary efforts around the globe. Suffice it to say that the budgets of some Christian organizations – like Global Vision, which operates in 90 countries around the world – exceed the budgets of some Third World countries. The doors of most countries are open wide to Christian missionary organizations to freely collect and distribute funds. Some of these Christian “humanitarian” organizations – notably the World Council of Churches – have been known to furnish Christian militia groups with arms and ammunition along with the food and medicine that they were supposed to be distributing. This has occurred in countries like the Sudan, Uganda, and Chad. However, who will dare to speaking out about it?

As I have already said, my purpose in writing this article is not to discuss Christian missionary work. What I want to talk about is the American campaign against Muslim charities that has been going on in earnest since September 11 that anybody who follows the news cannot help but recognize. It started out as a call to stop the flow of funds to terrorists. Then a number of lists were published naming charities, Muslim businessmen, and even some government officials who were accused, without the least bit of objective evidence, of financing terror. Some of their bank accounts were frozen and some of their properties impounded. The Arab and world media made an outcry against this vicious campaign. Then the countries of the Muslim world, one after another, were ordered to monitor the financial activity of the charities operating within them. Intransigent legislation was hastily passed that resulted in the marginalization of charitable work and ultimately in uprooting it altogether.

We should keep all this in mind when we read the news about the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad. This is going to be the sole agency allowed to collect and redistribute all charitable donations for use overseas. What does this mean?

It means that the overseas operations of all Saudi charities shall be dissolved and merged into a single “national” entity and all of the property of these charitable organizations will be taken over by it. A special committee representing various sectors of society will be set up to supervise these funds. This is the gist the official report recently released by the Court of Experts of the Saudi Council of Ministers.

We have a right to be worried about this decision – especially coming at the time that it does – since it, in the simplest of terms, means the termination of all the charitable work that has been a hallmark of our country’s generous people and a blessing for many needy people around the world.

Granted that some of those involved in charitable work have made mistakes or fallen short in their duties. Is it not true that mistakes are going to be made in any human endeavor of this magnitude? Must we look with an imperious eye towards their mistakes and overreact? Should we not rather deal with these mistakes in a positive, open, and transparent manner? Why not rather set down policies that will improve charitable work, properly regulate it, and correct the problems instead of rushing in to dismantle it and commandeer it?

There are a couple of very important questions that we must ask:

1. Does this resolution imply an admission and recognition of the accusation of terror financing that has been levied at our charities or is it merely a precautionary measure?

2. Does this resolution stem from our country’s own views and in consideration of its own best interests or is it being imposed on our policymakers from abroad?

I do not think that any intelligent person can fail to arrive at the correct answer to these questions. This resolution has political ramifications that run counter to our countries welfare, both at present and in the future.

There are two main things that all countries want from the charities that operate within their borders:

1. They want accountability with respect to their national security concerns. They want to know that funds are not being funneled to undesirable recipients.

2. They want administrative accountability; an assurance that the people working for those charitable organizations have the qualifications and the integrity to do so.

The policy being pursued by the Saudi government focuses entirely on the first of these concerns to the total disregard of the latter. Is achieving control on the security front by the complete dissolution of independent charitable organizations really going to bring about the desired results? It is obvious that it will not. Instead, it will most certainly create rifts that will be very difficult to manage.

Policymakers are well aware that they can implement procedures to monitor charitable organizations and their funds. They can do this while preserving the independence of those charities and their separate identities instead of demanding their dissolution. As far as I can see it, charitable organizations have no objection to such monitoring. No one is arguing against increased supervision and regulation.

In the event that the existing charities are done away with and supplanted with a single, exclusive agency, the public will become very leery to donate their money. They will be unsympathetic to the programs and efforts of new agency, even if the names of some of its members are well-known and popular. This will be the case especially if it is known that an official government agency is behind it. People will start seeking out for their donations individual channels that they are comfortable with. So, instead of merely having to deal with a small number of clearly defined charitable organizations whose administrative and financial activities can be kept public and transparent, the government will have to cope with the onerous task of monitoring hundreds of scattered individuals. The whole effort will fall apart at the seams. How can our security agencies hope to get such a situation under control?

Therefore, I say in earnest that this policy will not fulfill our national security needs. Quite the opposite, it will create a national security crisis that will be difficult to get under control.

Charitable activities should be kept independent of the government sector. They represent the noblest expression of a civil society whose institutions we all agree should be encouraged. Charities are a complementary part of society, employing human effort to build responsible, stable societies that address the needs of their people. When these activities are restricted to the confines of an official government agency, they lose their relevance and fail to garner public sympathy. People will treat that agency as they do any other government agency.

Charity workers are not seeking people’s praise or their thanks. They are not after wealth, status, or the limelight. Instead, they sacrifice their time and wealth to fulfill the needs of others and alleviate their suffering, while those around them continue to doggedly chase after their own worldly goals. Charity workers are going forward in the most generous manner to perform good works and provide relief to those who are stricken and in distress. Should such people be debased and accused of the most despicable crimes? Should policies be pursued that place them under dehumanizing and debilitating control?