UN’s Secret Sharia Takeover: Islamic Philanthropy Fund Turns Migration Aid Into Faith-Based Weapon

 

UN’s Secret Sharia Takeover: Islamic Philanthropy Fund Turns Migration Aid Into Faith-Based Weapon

A bombshell thread by genocide scholar Leslie Kajomovitz (@kikas6652) is blowing the lid off a disturbing new UN program that could rewrite the rules of global migration aid forever.
In a detailed X thread posted March 29, 2026 (read it here: https://x.com/kikas6652/status/2038316675976798359), Kajomovitz exposes how the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) has quietly launched the Islamic Philanthropy Fund (IPF). This isn’t ordinary charity. It’s a full-blown system that embeds Zakat (mandatory Islamic almsgiving) and Sadaqah (voluntary charity) directly into UN operations, complete with Sharia law compliance, fatwas from Islamic clerics, and an advisory board to keep everything “halal.”
Here’s the chilling part: Zakat isn’t neutral “help anyone in need” aid. Under classical Islamic rules, it prioritizes Muslims and specific religious categories, including those “fighting in the cause of Allah.” That directly clashes with every UN principle of impartial, needs-based humanitarian work.
Kajomovitz calls it exactly what it looks like: a parallel faith-based governance structure inside a major UN agency.And the money is already flowing. In just 18 months, over $24 million has poured through the IPF, including $1 million deals with charities that have faced serious scrutiny for weak oversight and potential diversion risks.

The biggest red flag? IOM’s close partnership with Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) a massive Muslim NGO operating in 40+ countries. IRW has been banned by Israel (over alleged Hamas ties), labeled a terrorist-linked group by the UAE, had bank accounts shut down by UBS and HSBC over counter-terror fears, and drawn warnings from Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, the U.S., and Bangladesh for radicalization risks and Muslim Brotherhood connections. Even IRW’s own U.S. branch sued the parent organization over the reputational damage.

Meanwhile, the same IOM largely bankrolled by Western taxpayers (U.S., EU, UK, Canada, Japan) is running massive logistics operations that critics say actively facilitate irregular migration into those very countries. Think cash cards, debit vouchers, and transit support in Libya, Niger, the Western Balkans, and even the Calais migrant camps. Its 2024 budget hit $3.7 billion, with the U.S. alone kicking in over $1.4 billion.

Kajomovitz doesn’t mince words: “The IOM is a convergence of illegal migration and ideology… The UN dumped international law for Sharia law.” This isn’t conspiracy it’s documented in IOM’s own materials, job postings for “Islamic Philanthropy Officer” roles, and fatwa endorsements from groups like the International Islamic Fiqh Academy and International Union of Muslim Scholars.
The thread also notes growing ties with Qatar, which has poured hundreds of thousands into IOM with few strings attached.

Bottom line: While Western governments fund the UN to “manage” migration, a parallel Sharia-compliant system is being built inside the same agency using religious doctrine to steer aid and influence. Kajomovitz’s full analysis is on her Substack, but the X thread alone should set off every alarm bell.

If this doesn’t scream “time to demand full transparency and accountability from the UN,” nothing does. Share this, read the thread, and ask your elected officials: Why are our tax dollars building a Sharia migration machine?

Under classical Islamic jurisprudence, Zakat is conditional and not solely needs-based. Eligibility is shaped by religious criteria... This creates a parallel system where access to aid depends on religious affiliation and doctrine, not need alone.

— Leslie Kajomovitz (@kikas6652) Mar 29, 2026

MamaButterBean

The $176.4 Billion Minibus: How Congress and GOP Leadership Hide Spending From Taxpayers

Opaque Bundling, Hidden Costs, and Accountability Lost

Congress claims to serve the public, but the $176.4 billion minibus appropriations package shows just how far transparency has been abandoned. By bundling multiple bills into one massive spending measure, lawmakers hide the details of taxpayer dollars in plain sight, and leadership led by Speaker Mike Johnson and GOP officials ensures accountability is nearly impossible.

This is not accidental. Bundled bills allow Congress to slip in spending that would never pass on its own, reduce public oversight, and shield political leaders from blame. Standalone appropriations bills, which could be scrutinized line by line, are ignored. The result? Ordinary Americans pay for decisions they cannot see, question, or challenge.

Why This Matters to Taxpayers

A minibus isn’t just bureaucratic; it’s dangerous. Individual programs are approved without debate, amendments are stifled, and controversial spending rides along unnoticed. This is transparency by avoidance, a political tactic that prioritizes expedience and political convenience over public accountability.

The leadership’s reliance on this tactic signals a deliberate strategy: avoid standalone bills that would force them to defend spending choices, while maintaining the appearance of governing competence. Every line of spending buried in the minibus is a line Congress avoids explaining to the American people.

The Consequences Are Real

• Taxpayers cannot track where billions go.

• Lawmakers avoid accountability, voting for packages they haven’t fully read.

• Programs and policies get funded without merit-based debate, including items that might face public opposition.

• The culture of secrecy erodes trust in government, fostering cynicism and disengagement.

Speaker Johnson has previously spoken in favor of single-subject bills, but actions speak louder than words. The continued use of minibus packages is political expediency at the expense of accountability, and the American public is left to foot the bill for decisions made behind closed doors.

Congressional minibus appropriations are bloated, opaque, and anti-democratic. Until lawmakers commit to passing standalone, scrutinized bills, Americans cannot know how their money is being spent, and leadership will continue to dodge responsibility for every controversial dollar.

---

Sources

• House advances minibus package including NSF spending bill - aamc.org

• Omnibus and minibus spending bills reduce transparency and obscure accountability - en.wikipedia.org

• Speaker Mike Johnson’s statements supporting standalone appropriations - foxbaltimore.com

When Bad Data Becomes a Weapon: How Data Broker Misinformation Fuels Workplace Mobbing - Opt-Out.

 

Employees silently suffer as inaccurate records follow them into the workplace, amplifying harassment, bias, and trauma.

Workplace mobbing rarely begins inside a conference room. In many modern cases, it starts far earlier, inside opaque data systems employees never see, cannot access easily, and are powerless to correct in time.

Large employers increasingly rely on third-party data brokers to inform hiring, screening, risk assessments, and internal investigations. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, the largest data broker in the United States under parent company RELX Group, maintains tens of billions of records containing employment history, identity data, family associations, alleged criminal links, and risk indicators. When that information is wrong, the damage does not stay confined to databases. It follows employees directly into the workplace.

Wrong data does not remain neutral. It reshapes how an employee is perceived, treated, and targeted.

From Data Error to Workplace Target

Misinformation inside data broker systems can falsely link an employee to criminal records, deceased individuals, unrelated family members, or fabricated risk profiles. Once such errors flow into employer systems, insurance assessments, compliance reviews, or background screening tools, the employee often becomes marked as “problematic” without explanation.

Colleagues may receive quiet warnings. Supervisors may increase scrutiny. HR may document concerns without sharing underlying sources. Rumors begin to circulate. Isolation follows. Performance is questioned. Opportunities disappear.

What appears externally as “interpersonal conflict” is often coordinated harassment rooted in a false data narrative. Workplace mobbing thrives when misinformation provides perceived justification.

Mobbing Amplified by Presumed Guilt

Workplace mobbing involves persistent harassment, exclusion, sabotage, rumor campaigns, and psychological pressure. Research links mobbing to depression, anxiety, major depressive disorder, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. In clinical samples, more than 70 percent of mobbing victims met diagnostic criteria for PTSD.

When data broker misinformation exists, mobbing escalates faster and becomes harder to challenge. Leadership assumes data equals truth. Employees are forced to defend themselves against invisible accusations. Reporting becomes dangerous when the system already labels the target as high-risk or unreliable.

Presumed guilt replaces due process.

Corporate Convenience, Human Cost

LexisNexis has paid millions of dollars in settlements over inaccurate reporting, including a $13.5 million settlement tied to false “deceased” designations that disrupted employment, insurance, and credit access. Such settlements represent systemic failure, not isolated incidents.

Despite repeated legal actions, federal oversight of data brokers remains minimal. No licensing regime exists. No strict accuracy enforcement exists. No meaningful opt-out exists. Errors are treated as acceptable collateral damage.

For employees, consequences are severe:

• Quiet removal from promotion or leadership tracks

• Heightened surveillance or disciplinary actions

• Psychological injury from sustained mobbing

• Career derailment without formal allegations

• Long-term reputational harm that follows across employers

All while corporations benefit from speed, automation, and plausible deniability.

Organizational Complicity

When employers rely on third-party data without verification, leadership becomes complicit in harm. Silence from management signals endorsement. Policies without transparency provide no protection. HR processes that conceal data sources eliminate any chance of defense.

Organizations that permit mobbing fueled by unverified data transform into systems of psychological injury rather than workplaces of integrity.

Legal risk increases alongside moral failure. Employers inherit liability when data errors drive discriminatory treatment, retaliation, or constructive dismissal.

Protecting Employees in a Data-Driven Workplace

Employees facing mobbing linked to misinformation are not powerless, though the burden is unjustly heavy.

Key protections include:

• Requesting and reviewing personal data held by brokers such as LexisNexis

• Disputing inaccuracies in writing and retaining documentation

• Consulting employment counsel before internal escalation

• Understanding anti-retaliation protections under employment and civil rights laws

• Documenting patterns that demonstrate coordinated harassment

Legal consultation empowers employees without requiring immediate action.

Accountability Must Replace Silence

Bad data does not remain theoretical. It inflicts real psychological trauma, fuels mob stalking dynamics, and destroys livelihoods. Eighty billion records later, data accuracy is no longer a privacy issue alone. It is a workplace safety issue. It is a mental health issue. It is a leadership issue.

Standing up for employees harmed by misinformation requires confronting uncomfortable truths about data brokers, corporate reliance on flawed systems, and institutional silence.

Workers deserve dignity, transparency, and protection from harm generated by invisible databases they never consented to enter.

Silence enables abuse. Accountability restores humanity.

Protect yourself: LexisNexis Opt-Out Form - https://optout.lexisnexis.com

Sources:

Workplace Mobbing: Not a Conspiracy - When Toxic Cultures, Silent Leaders, and Systemic Harm Go Unchallenged

Eighty Billion Records Later: How LexisNexis Turned American Privacy Into Collateral Damage