(Self-)Regulation of Muslim Charitable Sectors in the US and the UK in the Post-9/11 Era

Abstract

The differing charity regulatory frameworks of the US and the UK guided each jurisdiction’s post-9/11 efforts to thwart terrorist misuse of charities. The United States government’s efforts have been described as a “sledgehammer,” with a preference for adversarial and prosecutorial approaches. On the other hand, the United Kingdom approach has been described as a “scalpel,” where regulatory action by the Charity Commission is more precise and appears more collaborative and nurturing of the sector. Based on semi-structured interviews with Muslim community organizations and employing a functionalist comparative law approach, this paper examines the ways in which the respective charity regulatory frameworks mediate the impact of counterterrorism law and policy. Instead of being influenced by the style of government regulation, Muslim organizations in both countries appeared to be similarly operating under a form of self-regulation in the shadow of the state. It is not the formal law, or the form of regulation, that dictated action. Rather, it was the perceived threat of state action and the need to distance from it that motivated self-regulation.

Keywords: counterterrorism, charity regulation, self-regulation, Muslim nonprofits