Apr 6, 2022·edited Apr 6, 2022Liked by Ahmed Shaikh
Thanks Ahmed Shaikh for this detail research. Only an irrational person would disagree with you on this in-depth analysis.
Islamic Relief worldwide & Islamic Relief USA are designated as banned organization in several Muslim and middle eastern countries.
They operate in Filisteen 🇵🇸 only through UN agencies such as UNRWA, ANERA, UNHCR, WFP and has been directly funding these UN agencies for the past several years after charging a certain percentage.
They are a banned organization in this region and cannot operate there on its own. They should have been honest with its donors and should have shared all these important facts following the best practices and should have been transparent but unfortunately they have held back this important information and betrayed their own donors trust.
Also in its partnership magazine and annual reports they only show one low amount as its total over head expense. What they hide is the real information related to cash donations and in kind donations. They don’t separate them plus they don’t tell its donors the cut that IRW charges in UK as the implementor of their programs from these donations plus the cut each country office charges. They also do not mention the foreign currency variation for example when the currency is exchanged from dollar $ to pounds £ to dinars D etc their is certain amount of loss.
So what is misleading over here intentionally by Islamic Relief is that a simple hundred dollar donation given by a donor to Islamic Relief in US, later on by the time it reaches the actual beneficiary in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Somalia or Yemen becomes $50 which is 45% to 50% overhead charge or admin cost. This is extremely high as per all standards. This is the actual truth.
Anyone opposing or disagreeing with you on this report is doing so based on emotions or misleading information but NOT based on true merit or facts.
Salams, I’m an ex IRW worker from programmes side not fundraising but here’s my thoughts on this:
1 - some valid questions raised, IR should be more transparent in the answers and explain better (often explanation is good, but not always)
2 - zakat shouldn’t be conflated with overall funds raised, as the money is dealt with separately (ring fenced) - I.e. when we are told that money is salary funding we are also given criteria on its usage and restrictions. The admin costs of non zakat are higher as the 12.5% cap isn’t there.
3 - admin costs terminology is similar across the sector but not well communicated to the public. Examples of salaries which we won’t consider admins are front line workers such as teachers, health staff in countries etc
4 - Agree on Afghanistan, they should not conflate it.
5 - Agree with the comment that ppl should not see their donation in isolation. The admin isn’t just admin, but it allows for a proper infrastructure to be able to ensure compliance, build a strong team and better support communities. Eg IRW in Afghanistan just signed a $22m contract with UNDP, that is momentous and wouldn’t have happened unless it has the strong team, systems in place which is possible because of ongoing support from IRUSA donors and others
How to improve:
1 - Agree on sharing the zakat policy publicly
2 - Agree on not conflating crisis like Afghanistan
3 - Agree on more general transparency on how money is spent
1. It’s important to note IRW ≠ IRUSA. They have different governance, management and don’t do their accounting together. My note was about IRUSA, how expensive they are and how the 12.5% zakat admin number or 14% told to many donors is not an actual thing, since it assumes we ignore the fact IRW or other grantees have expenses.
2. If there is a real zakat cap and not just marketing-speak, IRUSA should do separate zakat accounting and detail how they spend it. They claim IRW’s international offices as their own in their marketing, but don’t count it in their accounting. They should not have it both ways. Frankly, a donor can just donate to IRW through a donor advised fund for compliance and get the tax deduction more cheaply.
3. IRUSA should be upfront about what is programs and admin both domestically and through IRW. Donors should understand how much value comes to humanity from their donation, as well as the nature of that value.
4. Frankly, Zakat donors may not be as jazzed about building an NGO superstructure that serves as a magnet for funding from governments, inter-governmental agencies and private foundations. IR insiders obviously love the idea. Zakat donors just want their donations to help poor people. Its not complicated.
5. IRUSA or IRW are not independent zakat beneficiaries, they are a wakil of the donor to benefit the discrete zakat-eligible categories. Building IRW into an NGO behemoth is not a legitimate zakat purpose. It may be a fine non-zakat purpose however.
Bro, i used to work at Islamic Relief USA. You’re commenting on things you dont understand at ALL.
The problem of over-head cost, for example, is not as simple as a numbers game. If you give me $100, would it be better if i spend that $100 and feed 2 families, or would it better that i spend that on a lunch where i convince 3 member of congress to give an extra $100k to syrian relief efforts? Any sane person would say the latter. But in that scenario, that’s a 100% over-head cost, yet it gets closer to solving the problem. To that point, how do you actually go about solving problems? Is it best to take money A and give it to party B? Or is it better to hire a team of people who are TALENTED, competent, and pros in the field who can actually work to solbe issues long-term? Most of the people that work at IR are pros in the field with college degrees in law, marketing, international relations, development, international aid, etc. and to have a competent staff, you need to pay competent salaries. If you talked to staff at IR, most would say theyre still under-paid and over-worked, and so most leave. We’re talking about talented, competent people, which you need if you actually want to solve issues at scale, not just hand out boxes of food. Your complaint equals to just maintaining the status quo- let’s not actually solve issues of poverty, education, health, lets maintain the status quo because in your eye, efficiency of the donor dollar is the most important thing. While its important, this is a very secular, capitalist, commodified understanding of the world. It’s also a lack of understanding of international finance, the difficulty involved in doing international projects, the changing political and social dynamics, cost of living, etc.
I’ll touch on another point about you comment on the problem of an “afghanistan fund”- the issue is that say, if you give to women in afghanistan, or orphans in afghanistan, and tomorrow suddenly there’s a drought in afghanistan- you can no longer ethically use the funds you have for afghanistan for the drought victims, even if you have funds for afghanistan relief. By allocating the funds to a general field, like the country, it allows the program workers to determine and allocate where its most needed by people who know the situation on the ground- as opposed to fulfilling some wish list request.
These are but two brief comments on a thousand dynamics about the international aid sector which you dont understand. IR has many issues, but the ones you mentioned are really not that important. Most of these issues come from the fact that donors wont donate unless they FEEL an efficient return on investment. Think about that line of thinking- its using a capitalist framework for charity, and thats the whole issue. Everyone knows that for example, the real water projects that make a difference in a region cost $80,000 and last for 10 years. But it’s very hard to fund raise for that, so instead many people want to buy a $2000 well which will last for a little while but people want to have their names on it and pay for a whole well. It’s more about the marketability of programs that actually make a difference. The Orphan program you mentioned is also the same problem. People don’t wanna actually solve the problem of impoverished communities, they wanted to have the feeling of sponsoring a child. The problem is as much the donor base that wants their egotistica sense of saving people as opposed to actually solving issues in the world.
I highly recommend you do more research about these things and understanding the world you’re discussing before posting this kind of stuff which actually will just serve to take money away from poor people
Apr 4, 2022·edited Apr 4, 2022Liked by Ahmed Shaikh
You have just refuted your argument by claiming that over head spending should generate more fund for donations but in reality we see the opposite! In addition to the fact that this is just a deciet to the donors who are expecting that at most 12.5% should be spent on over head while in reality that's not the case. In your efforts to defend IR, you actually made me more convinced about what's mentioned in the article, and how you guys are trying to act "smart" by investing the fund, when the sole purpose of the donor was to have you deliver the money directly to the poor and needy.
Additionally, to the problems of orphans and refugees only getting $30 or so out of the $65 that orphan sponsorships go for- yes i agree. However, once again, everyone in the field knows that an orphan family should be getting more like $80-$90 a month. But the problem is donors don’t wanna pay that much for one kid. They want the feeling, again, of sponsoring a kid but with minimal cost. And when you do that in a country like Afghanistan, where most people Do not have bank accounts where they should magically receive money, how do you suppose that those people are receiving that money? Its done manually to each household. You need to hire a very competent staff that manages both finances, as well as Orphan recordkeeping, and distribution. All of that costs money. The problem, then you need to have even more talented people who can come up with more efficient means of distribution. But how can you do that if you don’t hire that kind of talent? And hiring that kind of talent is all that kind of issue cost a lot of money. Most organizations don’t care, and they’ll just hire whoever to meet the bottom line. It’s actually a good thing that IR only wants to hire competent pros that actually try to solve issues. If donors understood this, you need to actually give much higher overhead in order to solve issues. But people are more concerned with the feeling of their donation being efficient..
Thanks for the comment. It appears you don’t disagree with any factual assertion here but only pointing out that I and IRUSA donors are ignorant simpletons and Zakat marketing needs to be calibrated by well-paid, college-educated experts who produce slick, inauthentic marketing to account for our lizard brains. I suppose this is where the 12.5% number comes from. Great.
I actually expressed no concerns about the work of IRW. It’s just that IRUSA does no international relief of its own beyond making grants to IRW after taking a massive cut. It is essentially a marketing organization and extra overhead maybe some donors like, others may feel they can do without.
Salaam, i did not mean to insult you personally or your intelligence. I apologize if i hurt you. Please forgive me. My comments were more about your technical knowledge of this work and what it entails. I do disagree factually with many of your claims and the ideas behind them, but its not helpful to clarify them as i think you should try and understand the fundamentals of international humanitarian aid work in order to understand what those numbers actually mean.
My emotions were riled up because IR has a deep place in my heart. The people that do this work are mostly very sincere, amazing people. I’ve seen with my own eyes the amazing work it does for so many people that no else cares about. I’ve seen in several countries and in the US. Its honestly incredible. Forgive me for getting defensive.
You seem like a sincere brother that cares about the community, as such i would urge you to dig deeper to find truth and reality. IR has many problems and i’d support your criticisms if they were the real issues. These arent the real issues. IR really does great work and if you sincerely want to help change it for the better, i urge you to actually speak to the org decision makers.
Furthermore, you didnt seem very interested in my central concern, which is why are we using metaphors from micro economics like efficiency to talk about zakat? How can we justify that line of thinking where we’re essentially looking for the best sale or best deal, as opposed to actually solving issues like getting people out of poverty instead of handing them a food box for a few days because its most bang for your buck? How can we say thats a better use of zakat, ethically, to keep them in their poverty because its inefficient to take them out of it. Helping people is very in-efficient. I honestly find it very unethical to talk about poverty in terms of efficiency instead of terms that actually take into consideration people’s lives and meaningfully helping them. It’s something i honestly struggle to see. If you have an answer to that i’d be keen to hear.
Thank you for your comment. The trouble I am having is that you are not saying much of anything beyond I don't understand and IRUSA donors are dumb and you need to market to their level. If we are to donate to a cause we should understand it. If we don't, we should not donate to it. If we don't understand it, it's probably the fault of the people whose job it is to communicate what that work is.
IRW's work is easy to understand. IRUSA spends a lot of money on domestic salaries, on google advertising, on music production, web development and on and on. Now maybe some of that is lunches for congresspeople you were talking about. However, other than wiring money to IRW, what international development work is IRUSA doing? It seems like you are objecting to a point I never made?
Wow, you come off as very arrogant and self promoting. Not to mention you seem rather heartless. If I offended you I’m sorry that you feel bad but not for saying what I said.
Brother Omar, I used to work in the field of international development, and I agree that you make some valid points.
I agree that giving out cash, food donations, and donating to one orphan at a time does not solve systemic issues leading to poverty. Other, longer term solutions are needed.
However, the main issue is transparency. Donors, especially for zakat, need to know how their funds are spent. If IRUSA claims that 12.5% of donations are going towards admin expenses, that it is reasonable for donors to expect that 87.5% goes towards the cause that the donor gave towards. Ie, If I donate $100 towards an orphan, I would expect $87.5 to go to the orphan.
If that is not the case, or is misleading, it is up to IRUSA to clarify the issue.
They can clearly make the case you did. Ie, X% of funds go towards hiring technical experts to select orphans and manage the program, and go towards orphan record keeping, working with government leaders (congress), thought leaders, etc.
Donors may not be convinced and elect to donate elsewhere. That is their right.
To help counter this issue, IRUSA can also highlight how many more orphans they were able to reach, or how poverty as a whole in a community was reduced by using systemic approaches, rather than just giving out individuals cash or for food rations.
Is better is largely besides the point with IRUSA overhead. IRW may be doing development, but not IRUSA, since it’s overhead is in the USA. The exception is buying lunches for Congress people to convince them to increase food aid. That sounds like a horrible use if zakat even if it has a massive ROI, which would be impossible to know, since no member of congress is gonna say they voted for more USAID money because of a Zakat-paid lunch, resulting in a grant to IRUSA or IRW.
IF IRUSA is using Zakat to dine politicians (I have seen no evidence of that and it may be a bad example by the commenter), that would be a scandal unto itself. Of course we don’t have IRUSA’s zakat policy or separate Zakat accounting so we don’t know.
Almost all of this is speculation. I read this very carefully and very few statements are backed by any factual data. You speculate then build upon that speculation. I wonder if you have a vested interest in a competing organization.
While I understand that there is an admin overhead and I try to over calculate my Zakat for some of that , I assume(d) organizations try to use maximum of Zakat money for the actual needy end users and try to cover the expenses from non Zakat funds. If that’s not the case, why do they explicitly ask for identifying a donation as Zakat or no. Is it just marketing?
The way I look at overhead from US organization is that it gives me tax deductions and I put that back in charity.
I can directly reach out to some individuals overseas (local I trust masajid Zakat committee) but that doesn’t give me tax deduction and I have less funds to distribute then.
In other words as long as an organization is transparent, doesn’t have the total-overhead-to-reach-end-user more than my tax rate, it’s fine. So, the key is reduced overhead and transparency and I think that was the point of this article.
Assalaam Ahmed. Fyi, I contacted a person I know at IRUSA about your article, fairly high up, and they have posted a response on their website. JazakAllah khair
I found it partially clarified some issues of concern. Overall it was unnecessary confusing, which in itself raises some yellow flags.
What I got from it - and please correct me if I'm wrong - on the main issue of interest to donors i.e. total overhead - the latest IRUSA are 16.1% admin fees to keep the doors open, 7% program expenses (shipping costs, etc.), and 8% field offices costs. Call it a third TOTAL overhead costs. That means of your $1000 Zakat donation, at least $666 should be in the hands of the poor starving Yemeni kid.
If that is correct, and I will try to confirm it is, to me is at the borderline of what is acceptable. I know for example that I can get Zakat money via family and friends to the needy in India for a WHOLE lot less. But India is not Palestine, Yemen, etc.
On the Afghan refugees issue, I found their response completely unsatisfactory and seemingly deliberately obfuscatory. I have read many articles on former Afghan snipers, soldiers, etc. all formerly working with the US military who have settled here in the US, fast-tracked, and are getting aid. Where are IRUSA in this process? Did they vet these people? What is their vetting process? Can they guarantee no Afghan who helped the US drop bombs on innocent Muslim villages is receiving my Zakat money? No answers to these vital questions.
JazakAllahu khayran for the in-depth review. If I may ask, do you think that zakat is mandated with the purpose of eradicating poverty and helping communities prosper or is our responsibility simply to move x amount of money from those who have to give zakat to those whom are eligible to receive it? Likewise, with non-zakat charity, should our purpose, as Muslims, be to help individuals attain particular tangible materials (food, water, shelter, etc.), improve the infrastructure of Muslim communities, both or one more than the other? Would like to hear your thoughts as I am seeing that a lot of discussion that happens on where our zakat and non-zakat charity goes revolves around the purpose of our charities.
I cannot speak to why Zakat is mandated. It is worship of Allah and the third pillar of Islam. It may be used for a variety of things, but it must be allowable in the Sharia. My personal preference for the best way to give in charity is really a different question from what the Sharia allows.
My question was more to get your opinion on whether zakat money must be handed over to the eligible recipients as is or can the funds be used in any way beneficial to the eligible recipients.
A wakeel, a representative of the donor, can take funds and use them to purchase goods and services for the Zakat recipient. So you can give Zakat to say IRUSA, which can use the funds to benefit the Zakat eligible in a wide range of ways. That is acceptable based on how I learned it, and that fiqh is how many charities base their existence.
Some studies have shown the most effective charity is to just give money to poor people. There are no real models in the US Muslim community that does this that I have seen yet.
This reinforces the mixed feelings I've had toward donating to IRUSA in part because of their fund-raising tactics that have made me question their operations. A pet peeve I've observed in some of IRUSA's promotional materials is seeing pictures of people in vulnerable positions (impoverished communities, children in desperation etc.) that provoke emotional reactions.
I recall IRUSA calendars having pictures of people in what feels like undignified circumstance. Other US Muslim charities do not seem to use such uncomfortable marketing tactics, which has led me to prioritize them over IRUSA.
I empathize that charity groups do have overheads and need to scale, and that nonprofit staff typically struggle from being over-worked and under-paid; I do feel the "General" category is there to allow for money to be used more with flexibility, rather than what is designated as "Zakat."
I've been forwarding your Zakat pieces around my Muslim groups. Keep up the great, necessary work inshaAllah!
Jazakallahu Khair. I hope it’s beneficial.
https://www.devex.com/news/sharif-aly-how-islamic-relief-has-dealt-with-disinformation-103350
Very informative especially for non-professionals in the world of philanthropy. Thank you.
Thanks Ahmed Shaikh for this detail research. Only an irrational person would disagree with you on this in-depth analysis.
Islamic Relief worldwide & Islamic Relief USA are designated as banned organization in several Muslim and middle eastern countries.
They operate in Filisteen 🇵🇸 only through UN agencies such as UNRWA, ANERA, UNHCR, WFP and has been directly funding these UN agencies for the past several years after charging a certain percentage.
They are a banned organization in this region and cannot operate there on its own. They should have been honest with its donors and should have shared all these important facts following the best practices and should have been transparent but unfortunately they have held back this important information and betrayed their own donors trust.
Also in its partnership magazine and annual reports they only show one low amount as its total over head expense. What they hide is the real information related to cash donations and in kind donations. They don’t separate them plus they don’t tell its donors the cut that IRW charges in UK as the implementor of their programs from these donations plus the cut each country office charges. They also do not mention the foreign currency variation for example when the currency is exchanged from dollar $ to pounds £ to dinars D etc their is certain amount of loss.
So what is misleading over here intentionally by Islamic Relief is that a simple hundred dollar donation given by a donor to Islamic Relief in US, later on by the time it reaches the actual beneficiary in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Somalia or Yemen becomes $50 which is 45% to 50% overhead charge or admin cost. This is extremely high as per all standards. This is the actual truth.
Anyone opposing or disagreeing with you on this report is doing so based on emotions or misleading information but NOT based on true merit or facts.
Salams, I’m an ex IRW worker from programmes side not fundraising but here’s my thoughts on this:
1 - some valid questions raised, IR should be more transparent in the answers and explain better (often explanation is good, but not always)
2 - zakat shouldn’t be conflated with overall funds raised, as the money is dealt with separately (ring fenced) - I.e. when we are told that money is salary funding we are also given criteria on its usage and restrictions. The admin costs of non zakat are higher as the 12.5% cap isn’t there.
3 - admin costs terminology is similar across the sector but not well communicated to the public. Examples of salaries which we won’t consider admins are front line workers such as teachers, health staff in countries etc
4 - Agree on Afghanistan, they should not conflate it.
5 - Agree with the comment that ppl should not see their donation in isolation. The admin isn’t just admin, but it allows for a proper infrastructure to be able to ensure compliance, build a strong team and better support communities. Eg IRW in Afghanistan just signed a $22m contract with UNDP, that is momentous and wouldn’t have happened unless it has the strong team, systems in place which is possible because of ongoing support from IRUSA donors and others
How to improve:
1 - Agree on sharing the zakat policy publicly
2 - Agree on not conflating crisis like Afghanistan
3 - Agree on more general transparency on how money is spent
Thank you for your comment Mo. A few thoughts.
1. It’s important to note IRW ≠ IRUSA. They have different governance, management and don’t do their accounting together. My note was about IRUSA, how expensive they are and how the 12.5% zakat admin number or 14% told to many donors is not an actual thing, since it assumes we ignore the fact IRW or other grantees have expenses.
2. If there is a real zakat cap and not just marketing-speak, IRUSA should do separate zakat accounting and detail how they spend it. They claim IRW’s international offices as their own in their marketing, but don’t count it in their accounting. They should not have it both ways. Frankly, a donor can just donate to IRW through a donor advised fund for compliance and get the tax deduction more cheaply.
3. IRUSA should be upfront about what is programs and admin both domestically and through IRW. Donors should understand how much value comes to humanity from their donation, as well as the nature of that value.
4. Frankly, Zakat donors may not be as jazzed about building an NGO superstructure that serves as a magnet for funding from governments, inter-governmental agencies and private foundations. IR insiders obviously love the idea. Zakat donors just want their donations to help poor people. Its not complicated.
5. IRUSA or IRW are not independent zakat beneficiaries, they are a wakil of the donor to benefit the discrete zakat-eligible categories. Building IRW into an NGO behemoth is not a legitimate zakat purpose. It may be a fine non-zakat purpose however.
https://ehsan.substack.com/p/irusa-is-far-worse-on-zakat-than?s=w
Bro, i used to work at Islamic Relief USA. You’re commenting on things you dont understand at ALL.
The problem of over-head cost, for example, is not as simple as a numbers game. If you give me $100, would it be better if i spend that $100 and feed 2 families, or would it better that i spend that on a lunch where i convince 3 member of congress to give an extra $100k to syrian relief efforts? Any sane person would say the latter. But in that scenario, that’s a 100% over-head cost, yet it gets closer to solving the problem. To that point, how do you actually go about solving problems? Is it best to take money A and give it to party B? Or is it better to hire a team of people who are TALENTED, competent, and pros in the field who can actually work to solbe issues long-term? Most of the people that work at IR are pros in the field with college degrees in law, marketing, international relations, development, international aid, etc. and to have a competent staff, you need to pay competent salaries. If you talked to staff at IR, most would say theyre still under-paid and over-worked, and so most leave. We’re talking about talented, competent people, which you need if you actually want to solve issues at scale, not just hand out boxes of food. Your complaint equals to just maintaining the status quo- let’s not actually solve issues of poverty, education, health, lets maintain the status quo because in your eye, efficiency of the donor dollar is the most important thing. While its important, this is a very secular, capitalist, commodified understanding of the world. It’s also a lack of understanding of international finance, the difficulty involved in doing international projects, the changing political and social dynamics, cost of living, etc.
I’ll touch on another point about you comment on the problem of an “afghanistan fund”- the issue is that say, if you give to women in afghanistan, or orphans in afghanistan, and tomorrow suddenly there’s a drought in afghanistan- you can no longer ethically use the funds you have for afghanistan for the drought victims, even if you have funds for afghanistan relief. By allocating the funds to a general field, like the country, it allows the program workers to determine and allocate where its most needed by people who know the situation on the ground- as opposed to fulfilling some wish list request.
These are but two brief comments on a thousand dynamics about the international aid sector which you dont understand. IR has many issues, but the ones you mentioned are really not that important. Most of these issues come from the fact that donors wont donate unless they FEEL an efficient return on investment. Think about that line of thinking- its using a capitalist framework for charity, and thats the whole issue. Everyone knows that for example, the real water projects that make a difference in a region cost $80,000 and last for 10 years. But it’s very hard to fund raise for that, so instead many people want to buy a $2000 well which will last for a little while but people want to have their names on it and pay for a whole well. It’s more about the marketability of programs that actually make a difference. The Orphan program you mentioned is also the same problem. People don’t wanna actually solve the problem of impoverished communities, they wanted to have the feeling of sponsoring a child. The problem is as much the donor base that wants their egotistica sense of saving people as opposed to actually solving issues in the world.
I highly recommend you do more research about these things and understanding the world you’re discussing before posting this kind of stuff which actually will just serve to take money away from poor people
You have just refuted your argument by claiming that over head spending should generate more fund for donations but in reality we see the opposite! In addition to the fact that this is just a deciet to the donors who are expecting that at most 12.5% should be spent on over head while in reality that's not the case. In your efforts to defend IR, you actually made me more convinced about what's mentioned in the article, and how you guys are trying to act "smart" by investing the fund, when the sole purpose of the donor was to have you deliver the money directly to the poor and needy.
Additionally, to the problems of orphans and refugees only getting $30 or so out of the $65 that orphan sponsorships go for- yes i agree. However, once again, everyone in the field knows that an orphan family should be getting more like $80-$90 a month. But the problem is donors don’t wanna pay that much for one kid. They want the feeling, again, of sponsoring a kid but with minimal cost. And when you do that in a country like Afghanistan, where most people Do not have bank accounts where they should magically receive money, how do you suppose that those people are receiving that money? Its done manually to each household. You need to hire a very competent staff that manages both finances, as well as Orphan recordkeeping, and distribution. All of that costs money. The problem, then you need to have even more talented people who can come up with more efficient means of distribution. But how can you do that if you don’t hire that kind of talent? And hiring that kind of talent is all that kind of issue cost a lot of money. Most organizations don’t care, and they’ll just hire whoever to meet the bottom line. It’s actually a good thing that IR only wants to hire competent pros that actually try to solve issues. If donors understood this, you need to actually give much higher overhead in order to solve issues. But people are more concerned with the feeling of their donation being efficient..
Thanks for the comment. It appears you don’t disagree with any factual assertion here but only pointing out that I and IRUSA donors are ignorant simpletons and Zakat marketing needs to be calibrated by well-paid, college-educated experts who produce slick, inauthentic marketing to account for our lizard brains. I suppose this is where the 12.5% number comes from. Great.
I actually expressed no concerns about the work of IRW. It’s just that IRUSA does no international relief of its own beyond making grants to IRW after taking a massive cut. It is essentially a marketing organization and extra overhead maybe some donors like, others may feel they can do without.
Salaam, i did not mean to insult you personally or your intelligence. I apologize if i hurt you. Please forgive me. My comments were more about your technical knowledge of this work and what it entails. I do disagree factually with many of your claims and the ideas behind them, but its not helpful to clarify them as i think you should try and understand the fundamentals of international humanitarian aid work in order to understand what those numbers actually mean.
My emotions were riled up because IR has a deep place in my heart. The people that do this work are mostly very sincere, amazing people. I’ve seen with my own eyes the amazing work it does for so many people that no else cares about. I’ve seen in several countries and in the US. Its honestly incredible. Forgive me for getting defensive.
You seem like a sincere brother that cares about the community, as such i would urge you to dig deeper to find truth and reality. IR has many problems and i’d support your criticisms if they were the real issues. These arent the real issues. IR really does great work and if you sincerely want to help change it for the better, i urge you to actually speak to the org decision makers.
Furthermore, you didnt seem very interested in my central concern, which is why are we using metaphors from micro economics like efficiency to talk about zakat? How can we justify that line of thinking where we’re essentially looking for the best sale or best deal, as opposed to actually solving issues like getting people out of poverty instead of handing them a food box for a few days because its most bang for your buck? How can we say thats a better use of zakat, ethically, to keep them in their poverty because its inefficient to take them out of it. Helping people is very in-efficient. I honestly find it very unethical to talk about poverty in terms of efficiency instead of terms that actually take into consideration people’s lives and meaningfully helping them. It’s something i honestly struggle to see. If you have an answer to that i’d be keen to hear.
Thank you for your comment. The trouble I am having is that you are not saying much of anything beyond I don't understand and IRUSA donors are dumb and you need to market to their level. If we are to donate to a cause we should understand it. If we don't, we should not donate to it. If we don't understand it, it's probably the fault of the people whose job it is to communicate what that work is.
IRW's work is easy to understand. IRUSA spends a lot of money on domestic salaries, on google advertising, on music production, web development and on and on. Now maybe some of that is lunches for congresspeople you were talking about. However, other than wiring money to IRW, what international development work is IRUSA doing? It seems like you are objecting to a point I never made?
Wow, you come off as very arrogant and self promoting. Not to mention you seem rather heartless. If I offended you I’m sorry that you feel bad but not for saying what I said.
As Salamu Alaikum,
Brother Omar, I used to work in the field of international development, and I agree that you make some valid points.
I agree that giving out cash, food donations, and donating to one orphan at a time does not solve systemic issues leading to poverty. Other, longer term solutions are needed.
However, the main issue is transparency. Donors, especially for zakat, need to know how their funds are spent. If IRUSA claims that 12.5% of donations are going towards admin expenses, that it is reasonable for donors to expect that 87.5% goes towards the cause that the donor gave towards. Ie, If I donate $100 towards an orphan, I would expect $87.5 to go to the orphan.
If that is not the case, or is misleading, it is up to IRUSA to clarify the issue.
They can clearly make the case you did. Ie, X% of funds go towards hiring technical experts to select orphans and manage the program, and go towards orphan record keeping, working with government leaders (congress), thought leaders, etc.
Donors may not be convinced and elect to donate elsewhere. That is their right.
To help counter this issue, IRUSA can also highlight how many more orphans they were able to reach, or how poverty as a whole in a community was reduced by using systemic approaches, rather than just giving out individuals cash or for food rations.
And Allah knows best!
The development issue, if the traditional aid worker thesis or just giving money to the poor https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/08/07/541609649/how-to-fix-poverty-why-not-just-give-people-money
Is better is largely besides the point with IRUSA overhead. IRW may be doing development, but not IRUSA, since it’s overhead is in the USA. The exception is buying lunches for Congress people to convince them to increase food aid. That sounds like a horrible use if zakat even if it has a massive ROI, which would be impossible to know, since no member of congress is gonna say they voted for more USAID money because of a Zakat-paid lunch, resulting in a grant to IRUSA or IRW.
IF IRUSA is using Zakat to dine politicians (I have seen no evidence of that and it may be a bad example by the commenter), that would be a scandal unto itself. Of course we don’t have IRUSA’s zakat policy or separate Zakat accounting so we don’t know.
Almost all of this is speculation. I read this very carefully and very few statements are backed by any factual data. You speculate then build upon that speculation. I wonder if you have a vested interest in a competing organization.
Stop this nonsense and trying to gain ground for your organization! Shame on you !!!
While I understand that there is an admin overhead and I try to over calculate my Zakat for some of that , I assume(d) organizations try to use maximum of Zakat money for the actual needy end users and try to cover the expenses from non Zakat funds. If that’s not the case, why do they explicitly ask for identifying a donation as Zakat or no. Is it just marketing?
The way I look at overhead from US organization is that it gives me tax deductions and I put that back in charity.
I can directly reach out to some individuals overseas (local I trust masajid Zakat committee) but that doesn’t give me tax deduction and I have less funds to distribute then.
In other words as long as an organization is transparent, doesn’t have the total-overhead-to-reach-end-user more than my tax rate, it’s fine. So, the key is reduced overhead and transparency and I think that was the point of this article.
Salam what about helping hands for relief and development, did you investigate them
And are they authentic?
Not yet.
https://www.devex.com/news/sharif-aly-how-islamic-relief-has-dealt-with-disinformation-103350
Assalaam Ahmed. Fyi, I contacted a person I know at IRUSA about your article, fairly high up, and they have posted a response on their website. JazakAllah khair
I saw! Did you find the explanation satisfactory?
I found it partially clarified some issues of concern. Overall it was unnecessary confusing, which in itself raises some yellow flags.
What I got from it - and please correct me if I'm wrong - on the main issue of interest to donors i.e. total overhead - the latest IRUSA are 16.1% admin fees to keep the doors open, 7% program expenses (shipping costs, etc.), and 8% field offices costs. Call it a third TOTAL overhead costs. That means of your $1000 Zakat donation, at least $666 should be in the hands of the poor starving Yemeni kid.
If that is correct, and I will try to confirm it is, to me is at the borderline of what is acceptable. I know for example that I can get Zakat money via family and friends to the needy in India for a WHOLE lot less. But India is not Palestine, Yemen, etc.
On the Afghan refugees issue, I found their response completely unsatisfactory and seemingly deliberately obfuscatory. I have read many articles on former Afghan snipers, soldiers, etc. all formerly working with the US military who have settled here in the US, fast-tracked, and are getting aid. Where are IRUSA in this process? Did they vet these people? What is their vetting process? Can they guarantee no Afghan who helped the US drop bombs on innocent Muslim villages is receiving my Zakat money? No answers to these vital questions.
Great comment. I will respond in the newsletter since there is much to unpack.
Is there a link?
To the Islamic relief response
https://irusa.org/admin-explained/
JazakAllahu khayran for the in-depth review. If I may ask, do you think that zakat is mandated with the purpose of eradicating poverty and helping communities prosper or is our responsibility simply to move x amount of money from those who have to give zakat to those whom are eligible to receive it? Likewise, with non-zakat charity, should our purpose, as Muslims, be to help individuals attain particular tangible materials (food, water, shelter, etc.), improve the infrastructure of Muslim communities, both or one more than the other? Would like to hear your thoughts as I am seeing that a lot of discussion that happens on where our zakat and non-zakat charity goes revolves around the purpose of our charities.
I cannot speak to why Zakat is mandated. It is worship of Allah and the third pillar of Islam. It may be used for a variety of things, but it must be allowable in the Sharia. My personal preference for the best way to give in charity is really a different question from what the Sharia allows.
My question was more to get your opinion on whether zakat money must be handed over to the eligible recipients as is or can the funds be used in any way beneficial to the eligible recipients.
A wakeel, a representative of the donor, can take funds and use them to purchase goods and services for the Zakat recipient. So you can give Zakat to say IRUSA, which can use the funds to benefit the Zakat eligible in a wide range of ways. That is acceptable based on how I learned it, and that fiqh is how many charities base their existence.
Some studies have shown the most effective charity is to just give money to poor people. There are no real models in the US Muslim community that does this that I have seen yet.
Got it. JazakAllahu khayr brother Ahmed. Please keep up the good work. I really appreciate you bringing these issues to my attention.
Thanks for sharing!
This reinforces the mixed feelings I've had toward donating to IRUSA in part because of their fund-raising tactics that have made me question their operations. A pet peeve I've observed in some of IRUSA's promotional materials is seeing pictures of people in vulnerable positions (impoverished communities, children in desperation etc.) that provoke emotional reactions.
I recall IRUSA calendars having pictures of people in what feels like undignified circumstance. Other US Muslim charities do not seem to use such uncomfortable marketing tactics, which has led me to prioritize them over IRUSA.
I empathize that charity groups do have overheads and need to scale, and that nonprofit staff typically struggle from being over-worked and under-paid; I do feel the "General" category is there to allow for money to be used more with flexibility, rather than what is designated as "Zakat."
Many thanks. I am interested in learning where or which organizations I can look into where my Zakat dollar can be maximized.
I wrote about one last year. I hope to write about another one or two this Ramadan as well Insha Allah
Very informative thank you!