The Limits of Panditry

Ooh!  A swing and a miss!  Just when I think the NY Times pandit, Nicholas Kristof, has finally caught a clue, he strikes out looking.  Early in his essay on the Saudi funding of terrorism, Kristoff writes,

"For decades, Saudi Arabia has recklessly financed and promoted a harsh and intolerant Wahhabi version of Islam around the world in a way that is, quite predictably, producing terrorists."

Reckless?  Well, if it's so obvious to Kristof, why can't the Saudis see it?  Are they stupid people?  Or, is it not more likely the Saudis know exactly what they are doing?  Is it not more likely they understand it much better than Kristof?  Later in his essay, Kristof clearly shows he is out of his depth,

"It’s particularly dispiriting because much of the extremist funding seems to come from charity: One of the most admirable aspects of Islam is its emphasis on charity, yet in countries like Saudi Arabia this money is directed not to fight malnutrition or child mortality, but to brainwash children and sow conflict in poor and unstable countries."

Krisof is referring to the "Five Pillars of Islam":  the credo, prayer, charity, Ramadan fast, and pilgrimage to Mecca.  But, if your knowledge of Islam comes from Wikipedia, there is no way to know that Muslim charity is not the same as Christian charity.

In fact, Islam is generally sympathetic to charity, but not all charity satisfies the requirement of "zakat".  For charity to satisfy the Muslim requirement, it must satisfy a Muslim objective;  it must advance Islam.  Thus, giving charity to relieve the suffering of poor Jews is laudatory, but it does not discharge the religious obligation.  Giving money to support dawah (prosyletizing) will do that.  Giving money to support jihad (holy war) will do that.

Thus, giving money to relieve the suffering of Jewish poor is good.  Giving money to support the killing of a Jewish girl in her own bed is better.  And if Nicholas Kristof studied more, he would be surprised less.