World Religions News

(RNS) — It began with a fatwa, a ruling issued jointly by the Fiqh Council of North America and the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America that expanded the reach of who is eligible to receive zakat, the mandated alms that observant Muslims pay each year as one of the pillars of Islam. 

The timing of the fatwa — it dropped about two weeks before the start of Ramadan — was notable because the holy month is one of the most concentrated times of giving for American Muslims. But the “who” particularly rocked those Muslim communities, since the giving of alms in broad strokes is reserved for those in need. The fatwa instead laid out an argument to allow for zakat to be given to politicians and campaigns to change or sway public policy.

With Ramadan now at its conclusion, the pushback is still raging.

Zakat is an important obligation applied to adult Muslims who meet the minimum threshold, or nisab, of savings and assets held for one year. Its eight categories determine who can receive zakat and for what uses it can be given. These categories are defined in the Quran as “ … for the poor and the needy, for those employed to administer it, for those whose hearts are attracted to the faith, for freeing slaves, for those in debt, for Allah’s cause, and needy travelers. This is an obligation from Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.”

The fatwa from FCNA and AMJA focused on the fourth category, mu’allafah al-qulūb — “those whose hearts are reconciled (or softened or attracted to the faith).” Its argument goes back to the conquest of Mecca, when the Prophet Muhammad granted non-Muslim leaders the spoils of the war, a move meant to prevent them from uniting in an attack on Muslims.

Other historical examples of this were also cited that discuss the giving of zakat for the swaying of public interest, “even to the wealthy, to non-Muslims, or to those of questionable personal character, when that secures a general benefit for the Muslim community.” Based on the cited precedents and other scholarship, the fatwa argues that this category of zakat can be interpreted to help influence or change political or public policy.

So, you want to help defeat Ken Paxton, the Republican Texas attorney general who has filed multiple lawsuits against EPIC City, the proposed Muslim-oriented community in North Texas, and taken other anti-Muslim actions in his bid to unseat incumbent U.S. Sen. John Cornyn? Or would prefer to help defeat both Paxton and Cornyn, who has attacked Paxton as being “soft on radical Islam”? According to the fatwa, you can donate your zakat to campaigns trying to do so. (Coincidentally, FCNA Chairman Yasir Qadhi is the resident scholar at EPIC.)

Numerous scholars and Islamic institutions have serious problems with this and have made public their dissenting opinions about the fatwa, including Imam Suhaib Webb and Darul Qasim, and several Islamic institutes. A coalition of American scholars representing the four schools of thoughts issued a joint statement rejecting the FCNA/AMJA fatwa as “methodologically unsound and harmful to the rights of the poor.”

One of these opinions came from Tamara Gray, founder of Minnesota’s Rabata Institute, who hold a doctorate in leadership. While refraining from directly criticizing FCNA or the AMJA, she emphasized that scholars have to be very careful in redefining the categories of zakat. “These categories are clear. The issues happen when we try to define them. Who are the miskeen (poor)? What does it mean to be poor? Does it mean that you’re unhoused? Does it mean that I’m struggling to pay my electric bill?”

Gray said the fatwa’s argument seems more of an expansion rather than a redefinition, but Haris Tagari, in this piece for the U.K.-based site 5Pillars, said that “ … such an extension compromises the divine rights of the poor by unethically shifting wealth toward the political middle class at the expense of the destitute, who remain the rightful recipients according to classical tradition.” 

But the question about whether supporting political and policy persuasion takes alms out of the pockets of the impoverished begs another one: How much of zakat giving actually reaches the poor? Who is checking, especially as giving zakat to Muslim organizations that deem certain donor funds to be “zakat-eligible” are prime recipients of these donations?

Zooming out even further, how does zakat interact with institutional and charitable giving at large within Muslim communities?

A recent webinar hosted by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding on “Trust, Transparency, and the Future of American Muslim Philanthropy” traced the shift toward institutional giving and strategic philanthropy. Oussama Mezoui, a nonprofit consultant and former CEO of Penny Appeal USA, said in the webinar that while poverty alleviation is the top destination for U.S. Muslims’ charitable dollars, nearly half of those who give report donating to civil rights organizations. That, said Mezoui, is “a much higher rate than any other faith group surveyed in the United States.”

The FCNA/AMJA fatwa has fueled these larger questions. “The ethical administration of zakat, as well as the scope of zakat, particularly whether it could be used for political purposes … has sparked significant debate about religious integrity, donor, trust, and ultimately, the purpose of zakat,” Mezoui said. 

The fatwa also comes as the GOP is pushing legislation that would end tax-exempt status of so-called terrorist supporting organizations (known as the “nonprofit killer” bill). Debates are also swirling around the ethics of fundraising and using social media influencers. “We have a sector that is large, that is generous, that is growing, but also that’s currently navigating questions about trust, about good governance, dealing with a lot of political pressure at the moment, and the evolving interpretation of religious scholarship,” said Mezoui at ISPU’s event.

According to the Muslim American Zakat Report 2022, an annual survey from the Muslim Philanthropy Initiative of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University, Muslims gave an estimated $1.8 billion in zakat in 2021, with “an average Muslim [giving] $2,070 in zakat.” The report displayed the diversity of disbursement of zakat, with more than 25% going to international nonprofit organizations, with domestic NPOs getting about 18%. Nearly 15% continues to be given directly to people in need.

“We as an ummah need to be thinking about [zakat] and seeking answers,” Gray told me, adding that some Muslim organizations taking zakat believe they are doing zakat-worthy work. “They aren’t … trying to cheat people,” she said, adding that everyone can benefit from more education.

But Gray believes strongly that a body of Muslim scholars should be established with the purpose of educating Muslims about what truly is zakat and what should be given as sadaqah (voluntary donations or acts of kindness) for various projects and campaigns.

Zakat is a part of a Muslim’s ibadah, or worship, Gray said, “a part of what each individual needs to learn. All of us accept that we need to learn how to pray. We should … be pursuing an equal amount of learning about zakat like we do for prayer or fasting.”

(Dilshad D. Ali is a freelance journalist. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of RNS.)

Our discomfort with animal sacrifice is not that we love animals more, but that we value personal sacrifice less.

The post Why We Don’t Like Sacrifices appeared first on Jewish Journal.

(RNS) — Questioning Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. director of national intelligence, on Wednesday (March 18), Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., suggested that it might not have been such a good idea to assassinate Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the outset of the U.S.-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic. Here’s the exchange:

Reed: “The regime in Iran is now trying to promote the deceased ayatollah as a martyr who should be followed. Does that help them consolidate support?”

Gabbard: “Senator, the Iranians are certainly using that as a call to action. The effects of that from an intelligence standpoint remain to be seen.”

Reed: “There is a tradition in Shia, though, to honor martyrs. One of their greatest celebrations is the martyrdom of the grandson of Muhammad. Is that correct?” 

Gabbard: “That’s right.”

Reed: “So we might have played into their cultural biases, erroneously.”

That understates what we’ve played into. Khamenei is not just another Shiite martyr. He was believed to be a direct descendant of Hussein ibn Ali, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad whose martyrdom serves as the defining story of the Shiite tradition. That story has been central to the Iranian regime’s response to Khamenei’s death.

In the wake of Muhammad’s death in 632, the Muslim community became divided between followers of his father-in-law, Abu Bakr, and followers of his cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib. After inheriting his father Ali’s leadership, Hussein and a number of his relatives and companions were killed by Abu Bakr’s heir, Yazid ibn Mu’awiya, at the Battle of Karbala in 680. 

Yazid’s followers became the Sunnis; Hussein’s, the Shiites. And to this day, Shiites celebrate the Muslim holiday of Ashoura as a time of mourning for Hussein.

With this historical context, no one should have been surprised that the Iranian regime has portrayed the killing of Khamenei, together with his relatives and associates in the Iranian regime, as a recapitulation of the martyrdom of Hussein. And, notwithstanding Gabbard’s claim that we’re still waiting to see the effects, we can discern one of them in the choice of Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, as his successor.

According to reports, Mojtaba barely survived the bombing that killed his father and other relatives. Hussein’s son, Ali ibn al-Hussein al-Sajjad, who managed to survive the Battle of Karbala, was likewise chosen to lead the nascent Shiite movement after Hussein’s death.

Let us bear in mind that Iran’s 1979 revolution established it as a theocratic state under the direction of an imam — in the Shiite tradition, the supreme religious authority. While millions of Iranians rejoiced at the death of Khamenei, who had presided over a murderous, repressive regime, it is inadequate to attribute the regime’s ongoing resistance to U.S.-Israeli war-making merely to the need to protect its own existence in power.

For the Iranian regime, the war is also an existential threat to the faith it has upheld for nearly half a century. The Trump administration, which itself relies heavily on religious motivation, might have thought twice about the wisdom of turning Iran’s supreme religious authority into a martyr. But not thinking twice is pretty much the administration’s forte. Erroneously.

What others might perceive as weakness, we should perceive as our calling.

The post A Bisl Torah — See Their Strength, Change the World appeared first on Jewish Journal.

JERUSALEM (RNS) — Every year before Easter, Elias Hazin’s phone would ring with pilgrims booking trips to visit Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus. This year, Hazin says, there have been only cancellations. The tourism industry in Bethlehem is “basically dead,” said Hazin, co-owner of the Bethlehem Star Tours & Travel agency on Manger Square. 

Tourism to Bethlehem and surrounding areas has been deteriorating since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza. According to one estimate, Bethlehem was losing approximately $2.5 million daily in tourism revenue in mid-2025, and unemployment jumped to 31%. But the Iran war could be the final blow to Bethlehem’s tourism industry — and to the already-dwindling Christian population as well, locals say.  

Almost every tourist hotel, restaurant and souvenir shop in Bethlehem is closed now, due to the Iran war. “If the residents who depend on tourism for their livelihood are unemployed, (that) affects everyone else in the community,” said Hazin. “The truth is that people are only buying the necessities to keep them going as long as possible.” 

Anton Salman, who served as Bethlehem’s mayor from 2017 to 2022 and 2024 to 2025, said that more than half of the area’s 30,000 Christians work in the tourism sector, which has traditionally accounted for 70% of the local economy. While thousands of tourists visited Bethlehem during the last Christmas season, thanks to the October 2025 Israel-Hamas ceasefire, the Iran war and widespread flight cancellations have scared away tourists.   

Since the Oct. 7 attack and Gaza war, Salman said, he has seen many Bethlehem-area residents, both Christian and Muslim, emigrate. “They left because of a lack of security and a lack of work,” he said. “They left in search of a better life and better opportunities.”   

The trend is hitting the small, close-knit Christian community especially hard, given that it represents just 1% of the West Bank Palestinian population. “We are fewer in number, so we feel the loss acutely,” Salman said.  

Hazin used to employ three people. Now he is down to one employee, whom he pays from his own pocket since his business is losing money every month.  

The little business he has left is now tied to outbound travel — mostly Christians in the West Bank seeking a better future in Europe, the U.S. and South America. “They want to secure a good lifestyle for themselves and their children.”  

Yousef Barakat, director general of the Notre Dame of Jerusalem Center, which has a pilgrims hostel, chapel and visitors center, already instructed his son, who recently completed his university studies in the U.S., to remain there. Barakat now worries there is no future for his children in the volatile Middle East.  

“Every two or three years we have a crisis. I think that even when this war ends, it will be very challenging for Christians to live here,” he said, adding that he may himself emigrate in “a few years.”   

The lobby of the Notre Dame center, a stately edifice, is once again empty, reflecting the cancellation of every Easter-timed reservation. “I’ve had to send all the employees home. All we have now is a maintenance crew,” Barakat said.  

In the meantime, Hazin is urging Christians around the world to support Holy Land Christians so they can remain in Christianity’s oldest community. In addition to purchasing online handicrafts created by artisans that are now sitting in shuttered stores and workshops, he said he hopes that Christians abroad will help local people create initiatives, such as small factories, to help them feed their families.  

“We are not asking for charity. We are asking them to protect the Christians who remain.”

(RNS) — Influenced by a prominent pastor and a layman who led a prison ministry, George W. Bush in his first presidential administration embarked on an ambitious goal: to partner the federal government with faith-based groups.

The concept already existed during the Clinton administration through a federal welfare reform provision known as “charitable choice” that permitted religious organizations to receive government funding if they allowed their beneficiaries to receive social services without religious coercion. But Bush codified it with what was initially called the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the White House that included 11 Cabinet-level departments.

“Government can hand out money, but it cannot put hope in a person’s heart or a sense of purpose in a person’s life,” became a Bush mantra.

In his 2010 memoir “Decision Points,” the former president credited Tony Evans, then the pastor of a predominantly Black church in Dallas, and Chuck Colson, Watergate felon-turned-evangelical advocate for prisoners, with helping him see the value of faith-based programs receiving government support.

Now, 25 years later, all the Democratic and Republican presidential administrations that have followed included some form of the so-called White House faith-based office.

Though some critiqued the office as inappropriate mixing of church and state, Bush argued in his memoir that “government need not fear religion” even as it “should never impose religion.” The Republican president aimed to create a nonpartisan initiative, choosing Democrats as the first two leaders appointed to direct the office: John DiIulio, a University of Pennsylvania professor, and Jim Towey, a former lawyer for Mother Teresa.

RELATED: Bush legacy to be shaped by faith-based programs

“It made the faith-based communities feel welcomed because they had been pushed out,” Towey said regarding access to government funding under the Bush administration to organizations with connections to a specific religion. “President Bush was very careful to be respectful of the Constitution, so he made it clear in the instructions that you couldn’t preach on Uncle Sam’s dollar. You couldn’t discriminate on the basis of whom you served. So you couldn’t say we only serve Christians here or Muslims here.”

But from Bush through the Trump administrations, complex politics have been a factor, with many of the presidential faith-related initiatives being established through executive orders — not through passing a bill.

Despite political divides, Melissa Rogers, who directed the faith-based office in President Barack Obama’s second term and again during the Biden administration, said the office has long had bipartisan support.

“It’s unusual for a president to continue a signature White House office of his predecessor of a different political party,” she told Religion News Service in a statement. “But that’s what President Obama did in 2009 — he ensured that the effort got bipartisan buy-in. And when President Joe Biden re-established the office in 2021, he also commended President Bush for creating it and continued this effort.”

Obama retained the initiative but renamed it the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and chose onetime assistant pastor Joshua DuBois as its first director.

The Obama administration focused on extending interfaith cooperation on college campuses and developing new partnerships in local communities where faith-based organizations worked with schools to feed hungry children during the summer, DuBois said. It expanded the number of Cabinet-level offices and created the first president’s advisory council with leaders from inside and outside religious circles guiding the legal and constitutional limits of the office’s work.

“It was also really, really important to ensure that that partnership never crossed into government sponsorship of religion, not just for the benefit of the government, but for houses of worship as well,” DuBois said in an interview.

However, the Obama administration also maintained a rule that angered church-state separation activists in allowing government-funded religious organizations to hire based on faith. And many who supported that hiring rule disagreed with his 2014 executive order providing sexual orientation and gender identity protections to LGBTQ employees of companies that do federal government work.

Rogers noted the Obama administration’s faith-based office worked with federal agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development and humanitarian leaders to reduce and contain the Ebola virus crisis in West Africa. Likewise, the Biden administration worked with congregations and multifaith groups to address the COVID-19 pandemic, including by establishing pop-up clinics at houses of worship for vaccine distribution.

Between Obama and Biden, President Donald Trump in his first term announced what he called the Faith and Opportunity Initiative and chose Pentecostal preacher Paula White-Cain, his longtime adviser, to oversee that initiative in 2019, two years after his presidency began.

About a month after his second inauguration in 2025, Trump announced that White-Cain would be senior adviser of the White House Faith Office and Jennifer S. Korn would be its faith director. Korn is former chair of the National Faith Advisory Board, which was founded as an attempt to continue work done by the faith office during Trump’s first term.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has long been a watchful observer and frequent critic of the office. Rachel Laser, its president and CEO, told RNS she sees merit in outreach to neighborhood and religious groups, such as the Biden administration-era efforts in the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, but she said the initiative should have strict limits.

“There’s some power in the government having partnerships,” she said. “Where things go awry is when the government is favoring religion over nonreligion. That’s unconstitutional, according to the first 16 words of the First Amendment of our Constitution. When the government is favoring one religion over others, that’s also unconstitutional.”

Over the quarter century, the White House has played a key role in determining rules around services provided by religious groups and whether beneficiaries of federally funded social services can seek or be referred to alternative services to avoid unwanted religious obligations — for example, an LGBTQ+ atheist or a Muslim who is homeless may feel uneasy at a federally funded Christian-run shelter. Obama established rules for aid beneficiaries to avoid unwanted religious obligations. The first Trump administration did away with the rules, and Biden’s put them back.

Americans United anticipates that the second Trump administration also could remove those regulations. It has opposed the Department of Labor’s December request for information about “barriers” that affect faith organizations’ ability to deliver services. In February, it joined with two dozen other members of the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination in urging the director of the Department of Labor’s Center for Faith to leave the rules as they are.

“Current regulations protect the religious freedom of beneficiaries while ensuring faith-based providers have the same opportunities as other community-based providers to partner with the government,” the groups wrote. “These rules do not need to be overwritten.”

RELATED: Paula White to head Trump’s faith office

Trump has noted that his year-old White House Faith Office is located within the actual building, in its West Wing, a historic move. But both DuBois and Towey said access and effectiveness were more important than the location of the office, which previously had been next door in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building or across the street overlooking Lafayette Park.

Lack of access to the White House has been a criticism by some faith leaders over the last decade. Last month, religious officials described to Axios what they considered a “closed door” policy for groups not aligned with conservative Christianity. And in 2018, the first-term Trump administration was accused by some religion-related advocacy groups of giving selective access to the White House, claiming they were never invited as conservative Christians were the most visible religious visitors.

In February, Korn posted on her X account to describe the faith office’s achievements: “In just ONE YEAR, we have reached 100,000 faith leaders in person through meetings, policy briefings, and Presidential events at the White House.”

Asked for further details about her statement and other aspects of the newest version of the office, the White House responded to RNS by pointing to a link to a page on its website titled “President Trump’s Top 100 Victories for People of Faith.” It lists the establishment of the new office and Cabinet-level offices with directors or liaisons, and the issuing of executive orders related to religion. It also noted a dozen ways it had honored “Religious Days of Remembrance,” including a National Day of Prayer event in the Rose Garden, and Easter and iftar dinners at the White House.

In early March, a short video clip was posted on White-Cain’s Facebook page of an office briefing that opened with a Christian worship performance, saying “Thank you @potus @realdonaldtrump for giving people of faith a seat at the table of government and bringing prayer at worship back to the White House!”

Towey, who recalled Bush announcing new programs of his faith-based initiative during State of the Union addresses, said he thinks there has been “a gradual downscaling of the office.” Even its name has been shortened.

“I think you judge a tree by its fruit, and we’ll see what the fruit of all this outreach actually is,” Towey said. “President Bush’s focus was on results and on removing barriers against discrimination and on empowering the armies of compassion. … I don’t really know what the Faith Office’s goals are. A revival of faith? I don’t know.”

RELATED: Under Biden, faith-based office bookended by COVID-19, war in Gaza