 |
| Source: |
In its news article about income inequality (20/1/2011), The Economist included the following quote by Adam Smith: "if a man was to lose his little finger tomorrow, he would not sleep tonight; but provided he never saw them, he would snore with the most profound security." But what if some guy named Bin Laden with his $80 million inherited from his father told the man without fingers that he knew of a way to help him?
That sounds rather philanthropic. In the Bin Laden model, a poor man could have an education – albeit solely focused on an extremely conservative interpretation of the Koran and military training – and a future as a martyr (i.e. suicide bomber), the most sacred status according to Islamic extremist groups. More importantly, the man with the big pocketbook would financially support the family left behind. That means the martyr has a paradise awaiting him in his afterlife without any concern about his family's financial wellbeing.
Although this deal has significant drawbacks, how is this any different from the role that religion has played in history? Religion has driven war and power, despite the fact that religion can bring about a lot of good.
What about poverty? Take Afghanistan as an example (despite the fact that Bin Laden recruited supporters in other countries as well). Afghanistan has no significant economic inequality because everyone is poor. With a literacy rate of under 20%, education is barely visible. Now, imagine what happens if someone offers food, shelter and education to a person with nothing - who wouldn't jump at the chance?
Take this model a step further. How can a person without money have a voice in the modern world? Violence (although peaceful protests have also proven to be effective alternatives). Bin Laden along with his group Al-Qaeda had the funds to wage a holy Islamic war (also known as Jihad) with guns, bombs, and plenty of human ammunition. In his model, Bin Laden applied the same philosophy adopted in previous religious wars: if you're a believer (of the jihadist movement), then you're okay; if you're a non believer then things may get ugly. So, here's the model in a nutshell: recruitment into the Taliban philosophy, schooling and teachings solely centered around Jihadism, and then fighting for Jihad to ensure a better future for the family (including a financial support from Al-Qaeda). For a person hoping for religious change by educating people on Jihadism and ensuring financial security for his supporters, Bin Laden seemed to be quite the philanthropist.
But what about killing innocent people? The Islamic religion along with many other religions in modern times is not driven by violence. But Jihadists believe in using violence to further their extremely conservative Islamic beliefs. Even Bin Laden reminded his followers that every American (excluding supporters of Islamic extremist groups) was a problem.
This is where philanthropy seems to lose its footing in the Bin Laden model. Charity served for purposes of waging war isn’t really charity. Sure, some people that support Al-Qaeda merely want a chance at the good life - education, the freedom to make choices and possibly some financial security. Nevertheless, taking another person's life or taking the dignity away from another by rape or abuse cannot be justified in the name of religion – it was wrong centuries ago and it is still wrong.
-For people that exercise nonviolence, Dried Tomatoes salutes you
No comments:
Post a Comment