FE Today Logo

Power of charity

It purifies wealth, helps the poor out

Mabroor Mahmood | November 15, 2017 00:00:00


A moot question crops up how many have ever thought that one of the weirdest ideas in the world that people still practice today is charity? Why would you give away some of your hard-earned income for somebody else whom you don't even know? Why would such practice make you happy and you would do it over and over again?

Actually these questions were never raised before. People have been practicing charity from the dawn of mankind, and it was only because God commanded us to follow this weird practice. From the beginning of the creation of mankind, God sent hundreds and thousands of messengers, in different communities, to spread His message, and one of these messages was practicing Charity.

That's why mankind never asked these questions about charity because they learnt it from their forefathers, who learnt it from their ancestors; the ancestors learnt it from some Sufis or Dervishes, who again came to the land for spreading God's message, and they ultimately learnt this lesson from the messengers whom God had sent to mankind at different times in different communities to teach people what is good and what is bad. That's how mankind learnt that charity is a good thing and it should be practiced no matter how weird it is.

That's why we see the flow of charities going from the West to the East, from the rich to the poor and needy all over the world. According to Giving USA 2017 report, charity contributions in the US alone reached USD 390 billion in 2016, which was 2.1% of the total GDP of the United States.

Most of these charities originated from individuals, not from institutions, and were destined to reach educational programmes, human services, health, environment, etc. The report also reveals historically religious groups such as churches received the most contributions, a proof that such philanthropic behaviour actually emanated from Christian religious teachings.

The Islamic Social Finance Report 2014 revealed that in 2012, Indonesia collected Zakat, a form of Islamic charity, worth USD 232 million, and Malaysia's collection of the same totalled USD 547 million the year before. In Saudi Arabia, total Zakat collected has increased every year since 2010 and reached as high as US$ 3.7 billion by midway through 20132.

Many noble initiatives were born out of charity, and they are running successfully and benefiting societies. When Rai Bahadur Ranada Prasad Saha founded Kumidini Hospital and Bharateswari Homes in Tangail, he was inspired not only by his mother's premature death out of tetanus infection but also from the teaching of Hinduism to practice charity for the welfare of the poor and the needy.

When John Harvard donated a library of 400 books and half of his estate for the benefit of a newly founded university back in 1638, which later became famous with his name and now one of the best academic institutions in the world, he must have known that such philanthropic act encouraged by Christianity would inspire many others to emulate.

When Dr Mohammed Ibrahim, a devout Muslim, started his small anti-diabetic initiative in Segunbagicha, did he ever imagine that this small clinic would one day become one of the largest philanthropic initiatives in the country, benefiting thousands of people every day?

Charity is encouraged in most of the mainstream religions. In Christianity and Judaism, charity has been referred to as "Sdaka" or "Tzedakah" that means giving alms to the needy. In Hinduism, charity is referred to as Danaa. In Islam, it is known as "Sadaqah" or "Zakat". Although known in different terminologies in different religions, the concept is the same, meaning standing beside the poor and the needy at the time of distress, which is synonymous with justice and righteousness.

All these inspirations of practicing charity came from the religious scriptures carried by the messengers of God in distant time periods. There are multiple verses in the Holy Bible that encourage Christians to practice charity. The same is true for the Holy Torah of the Jews. In the Holy Quran, one has to take a calculator to count how many times the word "Sadaqah" and "Zakat" have appeared in God's last revelations.

The impact of such charity is obvious and well-known. In Bangladesh, government's poverty-alleviation efforts have been greatly strengthened by the efforts of the NGOs who are actually driven by the charity of foreign donors.

Microfinance programmes, awareness campaigns, research, healthcare programmes, etc. have been successfully contributing to the welfare of society, thanks to the strong support always received from the foreign donors. These donations sometimes appear as grants, scholarships, financial aid, etc. but no matter how these terminologies are used, these are nothing but charity.

The impact of charity has always been measured from the perspectives of the recipients. How it benefited the poor, how it improved the lifestyle of the needy etc. were always the concern for the donors to make sure that their donations reach the ultimate target people.

However, little attention has been given to measure how it influenced the lives of the donors themselves. The purpose of the present article is to unleash this hidden power of charity that might change the way we look into this aspect of life.

Now why is it important to determine the impact of charity from the perspectives of the donors? We are using the teachings of Islam to answer this question. In Islam, there are two kinds of charity. One is "Sadaqa", which scholars opine as Voluntary Charity that one can give to another anytime, at any amount. The other form is known as "Zakat", which scholars believe as Obligatory Charity under which Muslims are required to pay a certain amount of his wealth on a periodic basis to a certain class of people.

The term "Zakat" means "to grow", "to make pure", and "to increase". According to Islamic teaching, the believers are required to pay periodic Zakat to make his wealth pure. That means unless this portion of wealth is given away, the wealth of an individual remains impure and toxic.

This is because whenever a person accumulates wealth, he is knowingly or unknowingly destroying certain rights of other people. Take one example of a building construction. The owner has purchased this land with a huge amount of money, but he never thought that a poor peasant has some right over a portion of the land, which is unknown to him.

The same is true when we consume our wealth on a daily basis; shopping, having dinner, enjoying holidays; but we rarely think about our neighbours who might be living in a slum staying hungry the same day. Since the resources in this planet are limited and everybody has a rightful share in these common assets, it is not possible for somebody to accumulate wealth unless some other's right is denied.

So when such rights are accumulated over somebody's wealth, these might create problems in the future if such rights are not honoured. This is the main notion of charity. If a portion of your wealth is not given away to the rightful persons, it might cause damage to you in the long run. It is similar to cutting off a wound and taking away the bad blood from your body in order to make the rest of the body healthy.

Now if the above is true, then the money that is given away must be toxic and should not be consumed unless made legal by God Himself. The hadiths of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) actually indicate that this notion might be correct. He was known to be a person who always asked people to give away Sadaqa, but never accepted Sadaqa himself. In one hadith, Prophet (pbuh) forbade the donors to take back the charity which is given away already.

The same teaching was followed by his successors as well. On one occasion, Caliph Omar had to vomit some milk when he learnt that the milk actually originated from Sadaqa.

In the Holy Quran, the words Sadaqa and Zakat have been used interchangeably, and in one verse, specific eight categories of people have been mentioned as legal recipients of such donation. If somebody doesn't fall into these categories, then accepting Zakat or Sadaqa would be illegal for them. Now, unless this given-away money is toxic, mentioning some categories of people to be as legal recipients of such donations would have been meaningless, right?

Taking note of the above discussion, now let us all think deep about various dimensions of charity and see how it can impact the lives of the donors if such charities are not given away. The following are some hypothetical statements (HS) that we have drawn from our understanding of the above discussion. However, these are not proven through empirical evidences. The readers are thus kindly requested to apply their own judgement to determine if these statements really make any sense.

Charity reduces "Greed for Money": Charity involves giving away money. A person who is greedy for money will be reluctant to be involved with philanthropic activities where there is no opportunity to get any financial returns. So if somebody gets involved in charitable works more frequently, his greed for money will eventually diminish.

Conversely, if charity is not practiced on a regular basis, it will make people "greedy for money". This is how a toxic wealth will impact the lives of the potential donor.

Greed for money was characterised as one of the prime catalysts behind the 2008 financial crisis. The same is also one of the prime behavioural factors causing corruption all over the world.

Now if this HS holds true, then increased charitable behaviour will lead to lesser greed for money among people, which will impact positively on the reduction in corruption all over the world. This will also lead to a lesser probability of a similar financial crisis in the future.

Charity reduces "Risk Aversion": 'Risk' in a way means people's fear of losing money in the future. A person is more risk-averse if he is more afraid of losing his money. On the other hand, a risk-taker is the one who is not afraid of losing his money.

The 'fear of losing money' is also positively correlated with 'greed for money'. A person who is greedy for money is also more afraid of losing his money in the future. So he tends to save his money more than others.

Now if HS I is true, then we can say that HS II should also be true because greed for money and risk aversion are positively correlated.

People's risk-aversion behaviour is an obstacle to the growth of investments in the economy. Investments need taking business and economic risks at various levels, and if somebody is risk-averse, they will not be able to be a successful entrepreneur.

Since there are few entrepreneurs and more jobseekers in society, the overall inequality in society will keep increasing if the trend is not reversed. This is because entrepreneurs have a more likelihood to generate a higher income than others.

So in order to promote entrepreneurship in society, people's risk aversion should be reversed with the help of increased charitable behaviour. On the other hand, if people don't practice charity, their toxic wealth will make them more "greedy for money" and more "risk-averse" that will negatively impact the potential growth of the economy.

Charity increases "Selfless Behaviour": Charity encourages people to contribute their earnings for some purpose where there are no expectations of financial returns in the future. Thus, if somebody is self-centered, selfish and only thinks about himself, he is not able to be philanthropic.

On the other hand, if a person practices charity on a regular basis, his self-centered attitude will diminish and he will eventually become a selfless person.

Selflessness is one of the prime attributes of people that help others to survive and become successful. During natural calamities, it is not the government initiatives that always help people to survive the crisis but it is the generous help of neighbours and friends that play a crucial role.

A successful person never reaches the position with his own efforts only. Those who have become successful were helped by many friends, relatives and well-wishers at various stages in their lives. If such selfless help had not been extended to them, they would not have been able to be where they are today.

Now, if this HS III holds good, then increased charity will make more people selfless, and thus more people will be saved and more people will be successful in their lives with the help of others. Thus the entire economy will be benefited.

On the other hand, not practicing charity and accumulating toxic wealth will make people more self-centered and more selfish. This will negatively impact overall growth of the economy as well.

Charity becomes difficult when wealth increases: If all the above HSs are true, then we can say that if a certain amount of wealth is not given away periodically, then such accumulation of wealth will make people greedier for money and practicing charity will become increasingly difficult for them.

Try this statement in your own life to test whether it is true. Donating 80% of your wealth when your income level is high is more difficult than donating the same when your income level is low.

Most probably this is why people from lower-income levels are ready to sacrifice their lives more during a crisis period compared to the elites in society. This was observed in 1971 when most of the freedom fighters actually came from the lower income groups.

The same has been observed during the Rana Plaza Tragedy when most of the ordinary rescuers were risking their lives to save the distressed workers trapped in the wreckage of the collapsed building. Elites were not seen there to save them.

As the readers can see, we have identified some dimensions of charity that actually impact the donors behaviourally, which cannot be measured easily. Now the question is do these behavioural attributes also impact the minds of the potential donors? Do greedy people make less efficient business decisions? Does accumulation of toxic wealth and consuming them on a regular basis make people more prone to deadly diseases?

Nobody has the answers. We are not aware of any research that focused on these dimensions of charity.

We finish this article comparing the lives of two geniuses that the present world has witnessed in the recent times.

We all know that both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have redefined our lives with their interventions in the computer industry. Both these individuals have many things in common. Both Bill and Steve were born in 1955. Both started their business much the same time.

Steve Jobs founded Apple with Wozniak in 1976. Bill Gates launched Microsoft with Paul Allen in 1975, one year before Apple was launched in a private garage.

Both are the fathers of three or more children. Both were married and married only once. However, there are some sharp contrasts between them.

Bill Gates never experienced fall in his career; his wealth increased day by day. But Steve's was the opposite. He was forced to leave the very company he once founded. He had to leave Apple in 1985. He saw both rise and fall in his career. He rose again but his success was short-lived. Shortly after his successful comeback, he died of cancer at the age of 56. But Bill is still alive.

There is also another sharp contrast between them. Bill Gates is a famous philanthropist, but Steve wasn't.

Our questions are could Steve live longer without any deadly disease if he was an active philanthropist? Could Steve make right decisions in his early career that could make him stay in Apple continuously if he had practiced charity more often in his life?

We also don't know the answers. But we know very well that these answers might be very powerful, powerful enough to change the world once again.

The writer is the founder of IDEAS FOR DEVELOPMENT (IFD).

[email protected]


Share if you like