Missionaries: Noble and Loving or Arrogant and Intollerant?

[Muezzin]

I'm going to be a bit nasty here, but isn't it a bit hypocritical to accuse Christians of bribing when Islam seems to condone such practices?

“As-Sadaqaat (here it means Zakaah) are only for the Fuqaraa’ (poor), and Al‑Masaakeen (the poor) and those employed to collect (the funds); and to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam); and to free the captives; and for those in debt; and for Allaah’s Cause (i.e. for Mujaahidoon — those fighting in a holy battle), and for the wayfarer (a traveller who is cut off from everything); a duty imposed by Allaah. And Allaah is All-Knower, All-Wise”

[al-Tawbah 9:60]

Doesn't this basically say that Zakat (ie charity money) should only go to non-Muslims in order to attract them to Islam?

Only if no non-Muslims are 'poor'. Poor people get aid and food and other great stuff that Robert Mugabe denies them.

As for the wider issue - it depends how the money is used exactly. If they're building machines which require the needy to recite the shahadah before they can receive food, I'd say that's disgustingly immoral.

If, on the other hand, the money was simply going to intitiatives where Muslim volunteers feed the needy (via things like homeless shelters etc), and don't require them to become Muslim to receive aid, I fail to see how that would amount to any sort of bribery whatever.

 

[Keltoi]

Only if no non-Muslims are 'poor'. Poor people get aid and food and other great stuff that Robert Mugabe denies them.

As for the wider issue - it depends how the money is used exactly. If they're building machines which require the needy to recite the shahadah before they can receive food, I'd say that's disgustingly immoral.

If, on the other hand, the money was simply going to intitiatives where Muslim volunteers feed the needy (via things like homeless shelters etc), and don't require them to become Muslim to receive aid, I fail to see how that would amount to any sort of bribery whatever.

Which is generally the case in all religious missionary/charity operations. The stuff is given to the needy regardless of their interest in that faith. I think it is a popular misconception that religious based charities only give to those who convert to that particular religion.

 

[Pygoscelis]

misconception that religious based charities only give to those who convert to that particular religion.

I agree. They don't give only to those who will convert. But they do give in hope of converting, and many of them do spend significant resources on religious dogma and propaganda materials.

To this end I always make a point of finding a secular charities to give my money to (Doctor's without borders is a great example). I realize that our perspectives will vary, but from my vantage point there is no such thing as a religious "charity". Charity should be done solely for the sake of charity, and not for the sake of spreading an ideology or religion.

That said, I have no issue with a religious person doing charity work because his religion motivates him to (good on him for that). My issue is with the organizations themselves and their often explicit goal of spreading their views.

And that said, the charities in question really do vary along a wide spectrum. Some religious charities are barely religious at all whereas others are truly disturbingly so.