Casual observers of US attempts to shut down Muslim charities might have an image in their head: funds solicited by Muslim charities for basic needs such as food, traded instead in shadowy back alleys for Kalashnikovs. It would be hard to blame them, given efforts by the authorities to paint US Muslim charities as being financiers of terrorism over the years, particularly since 9/11. This week, the trial involving the most high-profile charity, the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, began, and the stakes for both the US legal fight against terror financing and charitable institutions among US Muslims are high.

"There is no distinction," explained former Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004 when shutting down the HLF, "between those who carry out terrorist attacks and those who knowingly finance terrorist attacks." But was the HLF, not to mention scores of other shuttered charities, acting in such a manner? The prosecution isn't arguing that donated funds went to militant purposes, only that worthy donations such as medical care and food "effectively reward[ed] past, and encourage[d] future suicide bombings and terrorist activities". The charities argue that their only crime was to provide relief services to a group of people, some of whom could have sympathized with terrorism without their knowledge. "They are trying to establish that using widely accepted methods of getting humanitarian aid to the Palestinians is criminal," said John Boyd, a defense lawyer. "If that is what you think, then put them on the list and say we can't give them money."

Both sides have now spent over six years preparing for the case, and if previous trials are any indication, US authorities are likely sparing no expense to make their point. The bar for the prosecution is certainly high - authorities must show that HLF knowingly sent money to Hamas-controlled charities. (As of now, the only proven links to Hamas are the family relationships between HLF and Hamas officials.) Criteria like this is why no US Muslim charity has been convicted of supporting terrorism since the crackdown began in 2001 (though certain individuals associated with some charities have been sent to prison on various offenses). If the al-Arian case is any indication (the government spent $70m in preparation on terrorism charges but did not receive one conviction), the prosecution has a tough sell ahead of it. Indeed, the case is so riddled with tension that fear has caused three potential jurors to opt out.

Regardless of the outcome, Muslims will almost certainly be left with even fewer options for charities, especially those involving Palestinian beneficiaries. The barrier to entry for Muslim charities is so high that few have been created in the past five years to replace the many charities that exited the market. In the absence of any kind of verification program - the Treasury Department has steadfastly refused to certify Muslim charities as being "terror-free" despite pleas from various quarters of the Muslim-American community - the lingering innuendo and conjecture (along with threatened legal costs and closure of operations) will mean that many existing charities will shut down permanently rather than take the risk of being charged (which will, of course, be seen as a sign of guilt and vindication by some).

If the prosecution succeeds in the HLF case, it will mark a line in the sand that no Muslim-American dare cross. The vague definition of "effective support" for terror creates a zero-tolerance policy that can be applied to any type of support - even moral - for beleaguered Muslims overseas. The message will be clear to Muslim-Americans - even if you are resolutely against terrorism, and are willing to take transparent measures to ensure your aid does not fall into the wrong hands, you must divorce yourself completely from the plight of the Muslim world.

I disagree with the final conclusion reached in the article. That Muslims are now to abandon the Muslim world. Muslims must ask themselves who should a charity organization be "Islamic". Charity is charity and there are many charities that help Muslims around the world. No doubt these charities that claim to be "Islamic" must have some ideology around them since a charity organization can not be "Islamic". Its not the charity organization that is Islamic, its giving charity that is Islamic. And it does not matter who gives or which organization delivers it, the purpose is on the delivery of aid to the neddy and logistical support and it does not need to be Islamic. What do you mean an Islamic charity organization?

I think it means that our donation are going to Islamist groups so THEY can be the ones giving out these aids and thus strenghten them more in the communities they serve thus giving them(read Hamas, Hezbulah etc) more social and political clout. They can thus gain popularity and support. These charities that claim to be islamic support Islamist organization garnish support in their communities and then use that politically.

Muslim can give their donations to many civil organizations that help in Afghanistan and Palestine and Iraq. They must be aware of dealing with islamist who ony care about themselves and their Islamist agenda. Unless of course with islamic they mean we only help Muslims and the hell with others. This is of course un- Islamic and against the teachings of the Quran. So either way i do not see the wisdom of these organization and I think they are an islamist front groups to help other Islamist.

Giving aid to Hamas to distribute is no different than all of the zionist charities that receive enormous amounts of funding from the U.S..
The gov't needs to stop being hypocritical and enforce their regulations fairly.

I agree with Bigmo's comment. If you can find a charity that can give money in a targeted fashion to muslims--then do you need to go to an Islamic charity. I noticed last year around Ramadan there were some charities trying to offer their giving to Muslims. GlobalGiving.com did a targeted Ramadan Giving campaign with some very good projects. They works with Mercy Corps, Near East Foundation and other big names to find specific projects.

So long as Hamas, and similar creatures of Islamist extremism, refuse to renounce their murderous intolerance, they are no different from KKK or any other religiopolitical extremist outfit, whether christian, zionist, communist, fascist or muslim in ideology. Persons charitably sharing their good fortune need to be able to know their generosity is not perverted to uncharitable ends. Shahed's sort of "chicken little" conclusions about the US government's representation of it's citizens interests seem a little overblown. Whether or not HLF is exonerated, the trial of HLF class of defendants seems likely to make the charitable audit trail more transparent to legitimately charitable donors. Whether such donors then wish to narrow their donations to communally exclusive purposes is a different matter, on which Bigmo and Zees have already commented.

Giving aid to Hamas to distribute is no different than all of the zionist charities -

Please provide a detailed explanation.

This is a political witch hunt. The comparisons put forth by emjay is a reflection oh his ignorance and condescending American arrogance. I agree with Peace4all assessment, zionists have for far too long enjoyed US patronage.

Solomon 2- I wouldn't waste my time or breath on detailed explanations to a Zionist with ulterior motives. Everyone here knows and understands the Zionist organizations that are allowed to operate openly in the U.S. and then support the oppression and subjegation of Palestinians in their own country.

A critical new development is the Justice Department's release of a list of some 300 "unindicted co-conspirators." See http://www.namlnet.org/pdf/AG_ltr_UIC_list_final(1).pdf and http://www.namlnet.org/pdf/Muslim_Groups_Oppos_6CC7D4.html.