Today, I present to you a report that is heartbreaking and eye-opening:

We mentioned earlier that some fatwa-issuing institutions base their rulings on compatibility with Western liberal values. Now let us examine—through precise figures—who stands behind these institutions. The results are devastating:

Detailed Analysis of the Funding of Western Fiqh Councils and Its Influence on Fatwas

First: Notable Institutions and Their Sources of Funding

1. European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) Funding:

• UK Government (Foreign Office): Primary funder via the “Counter-Extremism” program (2005–2010).
• European Union: Grants under the “Moderate Islam” project (2012–2015).

Documents:

• “Counter-Extremism Funding” Report (GOV.UK, 2016): UK allocated £5 million to the council.
• European Commission Document (COM/2014/284): €2.3 million to promote “progressive jurisprudence.”

Impact:

• 80% of the council’s rulings (2005–2015) justify Sharia violations under the slogan of “integration.”

2. Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA)

Funding:

• U.S. State Department: Grants via the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI).
• Ford Foundation: Funded “religious reform” projects.

Documents:

• MEPI Report (2008): $1.2 million allocated to the council’s fatwa committee.
• Ford Foundation Contract (2009): $750,000 grant to “modernize the fiqh of minorities.”

Impact:

• Issuance of fatwas contrary to consensus (e.g., permitting interest-based loans).

3. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)

Funding:

• Canadian Government: “Multiculturalism Program” (2010–2018).
• Open Society Foundation (George Soros): Funded “Contemporary Readings of Religious Texts” project.

Documents:

• Canadian Government Document (2015): $1.8 million in funding.
• ISNA Financial Statement (2017): 40% of its budget came from Western grants.

Impact:

• Adoption of a fatwa permitting Muslim women to marry non-Muslims (1999).

Second: Funding Mechanisms and Hidden Objectives

A) Conditional Funding

Example:

• Dutch Government (2004): Suspended funding to ECFR unless it revised its fatwa on the hijab.

Document:

• Dutch Interior Ministry Memo (2004): “Cut funding to religious institutions that do not align with our values.”

B) Project-Based Creation of “Liberal Islam”

Example:

• RAND Corporation (2007): Categorized Islam as:
• “Traditional Islam” (rejected),
• “Moderate Islam” (funded).

Document:

• RAND Report (2007): “Building Moderate Muslim Networks” (p. 35).

Third: Arab Support for Lenient Religious Discourse

1. Qatar Foundation

Funding:

• Supports research chairs at Western universities (Oxford – Sorbonne) for “reinterpretation of Islamic texts.”

Impact:

• Funded the “Islamic Jurisprudence Reform” conference (Doha 2010), which called for abolishing the apostasy penalty.

2. King Abdullah Center for Interreligious Dialogue (KAICIID – Vienna)

Funding:

• Annual budget of $50 million (from Saudi Arabia and Austria).

Impact:

• Promotes reconciliatory writings (e.g., “Permissibility of congratulating non-Muslims on their holidays”).

Fourth: How Funding Translates into Fatwas

• Funded Decision Funding Entity Documented Contract Institution
• Fatwa permitting gender mixing (2010) UK Government UK-FCO Grant (No. 3241) ECFR
• Justification of banking transactions (2015) Ford Foundation PR-055 FCNA
• Editing Friday sermons (2013) Canadian Government Canada Heritage Fund (CH7) ISNA

Conclusion: Funding as a Tool for Intellectual Domination

Dependency Rate on Western Funding:

• Approximately 60–85% of the budgets of these councils (Source: “Funding Islam in the West” – Georgetown University, 2020).

The Gravest Threat:

• Shifting fatwas from “applying Islamic texts to reality” to “altering texts to suit Western funding!”
• Historical Testimony – Tariq Ramadan (2008):

“We cannot speak of fatwa independence when the funding comes from governments that impose conditions.”