Charity in its most perfect form

[Malaikah]

Beautiful story duskiness.

 

[syilla]

i was digging up the old thread...

then i realised this is the same topic as this one...

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/27426-does-islam-require-you-give-charity.html

created by : therebbe

 

[rav]

It clearly isn't pure charity if it is being done with an ulterior motive.

Shalom,

Is there really much of a point for you to come into this thread to tell us that religious charity is not "pure" charity? Please, pygoscelis, do not fool yourself. In its traditional legal meaning, the word "charity" encompasses religion, first of all. Second, who on earth are you to define what charity is “pure”. I will be the first to say that religious charities of all different types of faith are at the forefront in the battle against starvation in Africa and the fight against AIDS. Maybe these people have no inherent worth to you, since they do really nothing in the area of being “productive” world citizens, yet I view their worth as just as valuable as all of humanity. “Pure” charity, is charity that helps people. Yes, it is of course best to give without seeking any recognition as the main character “Israel goy” of the story did, but I sincerely doubt the small child in Darfur, tears streaming from his eyes, begging his mother for food as he watches a fly, really cares how, or why the charity was given. What you said took some real “chutzpah” which in Yiddish means some real “audacity”.

Rav - it's such a nice topic. And your story is also great. The fact that it took place in Krakow makes it even better

Shalom duskiness,

Have you been to Krakow before? I have, although I must admit that the mood was not very positive when I was there.

then i realised this is the same topic as this one...

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...e-charity.html (Does Islam require you to give to charity?)

It is a bit different, in that this thread is about different types of giving charity. Like refusing recongnition, or wanting a huge spotlight.

 

[duskiness]

that's offtopic...

Shalom duskiness,
Have you been to Krakow before?

Many, many times. There were years when I was there at least twice a month for few days. I really like the city. It has it's soul.

I have, although I must admit that the mood was not very positive when I was there.

Auschwitz/Oswiecim? :-[ Or was there something different that spoiled your mood? I bet you have seen Jewish district - Kazimierz? It a bit melancholic - seeing traces after people and culture now gone. But there are also thing there that, bring hope and life there (of course doesn't make what is empty today, full once again, but...), like Jewish Culture Festival Have you seen something more of Poland?

Friday so:
Shabbat Shalom, Rav

 

[Pygoscelis]

Shalom,

Is there really much of a point for you to come into this thread to tell us that religious charity is not "pure" charity?

Sure is. The title of the thread itself appears to be claiming that religious charity IS pure, but if its done primarily for the purpose of religious practice and NOT for the sake of helping others I say this claim is wrong.

Second, who on earth are you to define what charity is “pure”.

Who am I? I'm Pygoscelis. And I have as much right to note these things as anybody else. If you define charity as "helping others" then religious charity is not purely that. If you wish to define charity in another way, ie religiously, then this is simply a matter of semantics. Charity in the modern sense is usually meant to mean the definition I gave it though.

I will be the first to say that religious charities of all different types of faith are at the forefront in the battle against starvation in Africa and the fight against AIDS.

And I'm glad that they are. But their motives still matter. Are they doing this because they wish to help these people or are they doing this because they think it will get them into heaven? Moreover, do they also happen to preach to the Africans against condom use (from their religious dogma), endangering many African lives? Yes, they do.

Maybe these people have no inherent worth to you, since they do really nothing in the area of being “productive” world citizens, yet I view their worth as just as valuable as all of humanity.

Straw man (ie, I said or implied no such thing). And a pretty mean spirited one at that. You really think I see this people that way?

 

[Philosopher]

Charity in its most perfect form is charity done with no attachment to religion or any other "message". I am weary of charities when they have any attachment to a religious organization. That doesn't itself disqualify me from supporting them but it is a surefire sign that something other than charity itself may be involved.

Amen to that!

I find it barbaric that people need to be under the command of a false deity to help the unfortunate.

[removed]

 

[Malaikah]

I find it barbaric that people need to be under the command of a false deity to help the unfortunate.

What proof do you have that we would not give in charity if we were atheists? (God forbid).

None. So stop over-simplifying the matter.

That being said, I must note that Jews are cheap as hell

Take your idiocy elsewhere.

 

[snakelegs]

Amen to that!

I find it barbaric that people need to be under the command of a false deity to help the unfortunate.

That being said, I must note that Jews are cheap as hell

[MOUSE]bigot alert![/MOUSE]

 

[Pygoscelis]

What proof do you have that we would not give in charity if we were atheists? (God forbid).

From what I've read of your posts I think you yourself would be quite charitable if an atheist.

I just would prefer any help you may give to be given by itself and without an attached religious "message". This may already be how you operate. It isn't how many relgious "charities" operate though. Which is why I'm careful to investigate any charity linked to a religion before supporting them. Some are very good at keeping religion out of the help, only using it to motivate themselves in their work (these I support). Others will actually require those receiving aid to go to prayer halls. And then there is everything in between.

People in need of charity help are vulnerable and should NOT be preyed upon by religious missionaries. Doing so is one step away from brainwashing. Lifting people up in conjunction with a message. The only thing that separates it from brainwashing is that the helpers didn't cause the downtrodden status of those helped. Then again in some particular cases (ie the old Jesuit missionaries in colonial America), that isn't so clear.

 

[Malaikah]

I just would prefer any help you may give to be given by itself and without an attached religious "message".

Well of course, just because we give charity with the intention of pleasing God, doesn't mean we attach a Quran to that money or anything.

An example would be of the people who used to give charity so secretly that they used to just leave the money at the door steps of the poor people, and the poor people had no idea where the money was coming from.

And of course I would avoid giving in charity to organisations who are affiliated with a religion other than Islam since I don't trust their intentions either.

However I don't see why we it is wrong to give charity under the name of Islam without forcing the people you are giving money or help to to embrace Islam. If the aim is to show them that Islam is a religion that calls for helping others, then I have no problem with that.

Of course, I don't expect you to agree on that.

 

[Joe98]

I see some religions have rules about charity. In other words it’s their duty.

The most perfect form of charity is to give without having to.

Only the non-religious give to charity without having to.

-

 

[Philosopher]

I see some religions have rules about charity. In other words it’s their duty.

The most perfect form of charity is to give without having to.

Only the non-religious give to charity without having to.

-

Absolutely!

You dont need Krishna or Yahweh to feel bad about a starving child on the streets. If your gods cared so much about the poor, they could easily bring those unfortunate to affluence.

 

[Pygoscelis]

And of course I would avoid giving in charity to organisations who are affiliated with a religion other than Islam since I don't trust their intentions either.

Well then there's no reason for me to speak further on this point, as you know exactly how I feel. Just switch "other religion" to "all religion" and we're on the same wavelength.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I see some religions have rules about charity. In other words it’s their duty.

The most perfect form of charity is to give without having to.

Only the non-religious give to charity without having to.

-

I do kind of feel obliged to help. If I didn't help I'd feel bad about myself.

I feel that it is our duty to help the less fortunate, not because we are religious people, but because we are fellow human beings.

 

[glo]

I do kind of feel obliged to help. If I didn't help I'd feel bad about myself.

I feel that it is our duty to help the less fortunate, not because we are religious people, but because we are fellow human beings.

Arguably, then, even non-religious people help others for their own 'personal gain':

• Perhaps to 'feel better about themselves' - doing good to others makes us feel good about ourselves
• Perhaps to ease their guilt for leading a wealthy, secure life, when others are starving

To be honest, I don't think I have ever given to charity thinking 'I don't really want to do this, but I better - just to get in God's good books!'
I think ultimately humans are wired to see each others' need, and help when we can (at least, I like to think so!)

I tend to agree with what rav said in an earlier post:
There is so much need in the world! The developed nations hold the money, the wealth, the resources to ease the burden of the poor.
If everybody started to give to and help those in need today and every day, we can make this world a better place!
Whether we are doing it for God or for other reasons should be a secondary consideration.
That we are doing it should be much more important!

Peace

 

[Pygoscelis]

There is so much need in the world! The developed nations hold the money, the wealth, the resources to ease the burden of the poor.
If everybody started to give to and help those in need today and every day, we can make this world a better place!
Whether we are doing it for God or for other reasons should be a secondary consideration.
That we are doing it should be much more important!

Peace

I agree completely. I am just being careful to add that another important thing is that we do it without purposefully or inadvertantly brainwashing the less fortunate to our benefit. This applies equally in and out of religion. I also oppose aid to foreign countries with a "side with us on X international issue" message. That isn't charity, but coercion.

 

[KAding]

I'm somewhat confused why this charity is charity in its 'most perfect form'. Surely if you give charity to please God you still put the focus on the one that gives the charity, in which case it is not about those that receive and need it.

In a similar vain, shouldn't 'charity in its most perfect form' take into account its effectiveness? The point is to get maximum effect for your charity, not self-congratulations on your intent or the submission to a religious command about x% charity. The point of charity is to help as much people as you can, to relieve as much suffering as possible. The intentions of the giver are hardly relevant IMHO. So what if some people stroke their ego by proclaiming they gave money? I am convinced lots of people can also stroke their ego by keeping it quiet, especially if religion commands them to keep it quiet: "I gave money and didn't tell anyone, ain't I a good guy" . If stroking the ego of donors leads to more charity I'm all in favor of it!

Besides, to be quite honest I've become quite skeptical about the 'goodness' of zakat. Apparently it is not allowed to give Zakat to non-Muslims:

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=39655&ln=eng
Question:
Is it permissible to give zakaah to a kaafir?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

It is not permissible to give zakaah to a kaafir except if it is to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined towards Islam. <...> It is permissible to give zakaah to a kaafir, if we hope that by giving him something he will become Muslim.

That almost sounds like a bribe to me! Apparently it does not matter if non-Muslims would need it more, not even if more suffering would be relieved if it would be given to them. With such strings attached I would never call 'zakaat' charity in its most 'perfect form'. It is an example of putting ideology before helping people. But I understand Sadaqah can be given to non-Muslims, so thats certainly an improvement.

 

[Malaikah]

But it is compulsory for Muslims to pay zakat, non-Muslims do not pay zakat. Why should the non-Muslims receive the benefit of zakat when they don't even pay it themselves?

Zakat is a Muslim thing, it is only a subset of charity. Charity can be given to anyone.

 

[rav]

I'm somewhat confused why this charity is charity in its 'most perfect form'. Surely if you give charity to please God you still put the focus on the one that gives the charity, in which case it is not about those that receive and need it.

In a similar vain, shouldn't 'charity in its most perfect form' take into account its effectiveness? The point is to get maximum effect for your charity, not self-congratulations on your intent or the submission to a religious command about x% charity. The point of charity is to help as much people as you can, to relieve as much suffering as possible. The intentions of the giver are hardly relevant IMHO. So what if some people stroke their ego by proclaiming they gave money? I am convinced lots of people can also stroke their ego by keeping it quiet, especially if religion commands them to keep it quiet: "I gave money and didn't tell anyone, ain't I a good guy" . If stroking the ego of donors leads to more charity I'm all in favor of it!

Shalom,

A few points Kading. We have had an Atheist in here arguing that religious charity is bad because it is done for religious purposes, yet now you are saying that the intent is not important, the what it does is. So I am a bit confused, maybe you just have different opinions either way I will tell you why it was the 'most perfect form of charity'. The man in the story accomplished these things:

1. Feeding a huge amount of Krakow's Jewish poor - (in your words "relieve as much suffering as possible")
2. Took no credit for it, because it was of the purest intentions.

As I have said, you may think that he may be "self congratulating" himself, but what is the point of such a comment. The man in the story (which is very true) never ever to credit nor did he even reveal his good deeds when he was humiliated with the name "Israel Goy". He did not care what others think, he did not ask the charity organizations to create plaques for him, or spend some money which could be used for charity, on fancy award dinners where he gets honored instead of using that money for charity. He went out on his own, found the problem and created a solution. He then did it in complete secrecy, for the sake of helping others and serving G-d. He made it so the people would not be ashamed and look at how many people he helped. Hundreds every week with food.

How could you ever say it is not the 'most perfect form' of charity. If it is not, then what is?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Why should the non-Muslims receive the benefit of zakat when they don't even pay it themselves?

If one can ask this about it, it isn't charity.