Islam and The Future of Philanthropy
by Jeremy Henzell-Thomas

I would like to approach the subject of the future of philanthropy by trying to express the charitable principles which comes from my own faith, and to emphasise the vital role of young people in the dawning of a new golden age of philanthropy. We need more than anything else in the modern world a clear commitment to timeless ethical and spiritual values and it is young people who will carry the torch into the new century.

So I want to say at the very beginning that what will really make a difference, not only in the next decade, but in the decades after that, is, first and foremost, an unwavering fidelity to the highest ethical and spiritual principles. It is through such principles, and such principles alone, that we can not only make a difference but also have the possibility, with God’s Grace, to radically change the world for the better and transform lives. My Islamic faith tells me that these principles are innate in all of us by virtue of our standing as human beings created in the image of God.

The embodiment of these principles is not a matter of convenience, calculation or expediency, but an absolute sacred trust (amanah) which imposes on us the duty of stewardship (khilafah) and demands of us a proactive sense of care, social responsibility charitable deeds, and good works (salihat). The Qur’an promises divine rewards for those who have faith and do good works (2:277 and 16:97) even if the ideal spiritual attitude is to go beyond either fear of God’s wrath or the prospect of reward but to love God purely for His own sake. The insistence that one’s spiritual aspiration should be based in selfless love is most famously expressed by the great woman mystic Rabi’a al-Adawiyya, who lived in Basra in the first century after the death of the Prophet:

“O Allah! If I worship Thee in fear of Hell, burn me in Hell; and if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise; but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine Everlasting Beauty!” (Arberry).

The doctrine of the Covenant (mithaq) between God and Humanity necessarily implies a sacred Trust (Qur’an 7:172-3). Muhammad Asad notes that the term ‘aqd (“covenant”) in the Qur’anic call to people of faith to be “true to your covenants” (Qur’an 5:1) denotes a “solemn undertaking involving more than one party” and he refers to Raghib’s interpretation that “the covenants referred to in this verse are of three kinds: the covenants between God and man [or man’s obligations towards God], between man and his own soul, and between the individual and his fellow-men, thus embracing the entire area of man’s moral and social responsibilities.”

The Qur’an also makes it clear that in entrusting man to ‘inherit the earth’ God grants to him the ability to discern between right and wrong as well as between truth and falsehood (see Qur’an 33:72 and Muhammad Asad’s note.). According to Muhammad Asad, the most convincing explanation of the term amanah in Qur’an 33:72 by the classical commentators on the Qur’an is “reason”, “intellect” or the “faculty of volition”, that is, “the ability to choose between two or more possible courses of action and thus between good and evil.”

Referring to the same verse, Faruq Sherif [1] maintains that “The essence of the different classical interpretations is that it is the exercise of the will, the assumption of the responsibility of choosing between good and evil, and the fulfillment of the divine commandments. The physical world, knowing itself powerless to exercise any will of its own, and standing in awe of God’s majesty (Qur’an 59:21) bowed unreservedly to God’s Will (Qur’an 16:12, 41:10; 22:18). Man, on the contrary, showed temerity by assuming the Trust, unjustly (because part of his progeny would inevitably breach the trust) and foolishly (because Man did not measure the extent of his powers.”

In the light of this self-imposed burden, man must continually strive to measure up to the moral responsibility imposed by his acceptance of the Trust.

Built into both these concepts, khilafah and amanah, as well as other terms in the Qur’an denoting human faculties, is the sense of moral valuation and the faculty of discernment which enables human beings to distinguish between truth and falsehood and do what is right. The Islamic vision of human faculties does not separate the intellect (‘aql) from that sense of moral valuation. Qur’an 2:53 exhorts us to remember the time “when We vouchsafed unto Moses the divine writ–and [thus] a standard by which to discern the true from the false–so that you might be guided aright.” Muhammad Asad comments on this verse that, according to Muhammad ‘Abduh, the concept of al-furqan can also be applied to human reason, which enables human beings to distinguish the true from the false.  Asad also translates the term ar-rushd as “consciousness of what is right” (Qur’an 21:51).

Philanthropists from other traditions also emphasise the importance of being absolutely clear about the core values which underpin philanthropy at a time when much is changing in the philanthropic landscape.

As an example, one formulation I have seen identifies three core values in the American tradition of philanthropy: generosity, experimentation, and freedom. [2]
Let us always look for the convergence between what is best in every tradition, and it seem clear to me that these three values are entirely compatible with an Islamic vision of stewardship. The typically American philanthropic generosity which creates endowed funds at community foundations and endowed family and private foundations in perpetuity also displays remarkable humility and trust in leaving its stewardship to people in successive generations who may be unknown to the original donor.

As for experimentation it is surely true that creative philanthropy will increasingly depend on a new energy, both intellectual and practical, released by the Creative Foundation as a powerhouse of experimentation, innovation and creative thinking that modern society needs. [3] I would only add that from my understanding of Islamic principles, creativity in all its authentic forms is ultimately derived not from man but from the Creator, and the role of the khalifah or steward is to continue the creative process started by God by assuming the sacred responsibility to maintain and repair the world. This world and all that is in it belong not to man but to God, and man is no more than a caretaker.  Creative philanthropy in its highest sense is therefore precisely synonymous with divinely entrusted stewardship.

Let me say a few words about the current state of philanthropy in general.  Most would agree that this is very robust, but looking to the future, many people are saying that a new golden age of philanthropy is dawning and that this will have a huge impact on our communities, not only in the next decade but beyond that in the decades ahead. 

There is a continuing explosion in the establishment of charitable foundations around the world. In the USA, the number of charitable foundations has tripled since the early 1980s, and there are promising signs at last that more Americans are interested in giving to international causes, even if the baseline us still extremely modest. According to figures available in 2002, of the $200 billion contributed by Americans in private giving each year, less than 2 percent was invested in overseas problems. [4] 

In Germany, about 800 charitable foundations are being established every year, and this pattern is being repeated in many developed countries. Most importantly, philanthropy is growing in such Southern countries as India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. The emergence of “global philanthropy” is also promoting social investments across many national and political boundaries. 

In a keynote speech [5] on the future of philanthropy, Carolyn Milne refers to the expectation of a huge transfer of wealth from one generation to the next – the largest in history. She points out that in many wealthy nations, the generation over 50 years of age either own or control over 75% of all personal wealth. In Canada, for example, $1 trillion is expected to pass from one generation to the next as an estimated 3.5 million Canadians die between 1990 and 2010. But only about 7% of Canadians leave a gift to charity in their wills. Many more would if asked. The potential is huge.  “With that enormous opportunity”, she says,  “comes the challenge: how much of that vast inherited wealth will benefit the community?  Only a small percentage leave anything to charity in their wills. Many more would if asked. Imagine what could be done if everyone considered their community to be another family member or friend who could benefit from their life’s work.”

But the potential is not only in this vast well of inherited wealth from an aging generation. What is even more exciting in many ways is the engagement of young people in philanthropic causes.

Milne describes now successful young entrepreneurs are already in the vanguard of those who are bringing in the new golden age of philanthropy. Committed and engaged, and driven by powerful and coherent ethical values, they are using not only their financial assets but also their extensive networks and specialized talents to tackle some of the root causes of problems in our societies.

And it is not only these young entrepreneurs who are making a difference. Milne refers to recent studies in Canada which show that the vast majority of youth make financial donations to charitable causes. And the commitment doesn’t end with the giving. They want their donations to count and they are interested in solutions rather than band-aids. Like many entrepreneurs, they want to be involved in how their donations are spent and they want a voice in the organisations they support.  Many of them volunteer, both to support the cause they believe in and to gain employment skills. Research also show that young people who give were much more likely than non-givers to have been involved in organised community activities in their early years, whether in sports, youth groups, student government, community service initiatives or other supportive activities.

There are a lot of buzz words and phrases in philanthropic circles today, especially when it comes to the envisioning of the future of philanthropy.  One example will suffice. The 2005 Executive Summary of the Global Business Network and Monitor Institute [6]  presents possible futures of philanthropy in relation to three key themes faced by donors: the pressure for accountability, the demand for effectiveness and impact, and the need for infrastructure. It also proposes four principles which seek to guide decision-making in the increasingly complex world of modern philanthropy where old patterns and habits are giving way to new seeds of change. We are invited to “exploit philanthropy’s strategic advantage”, to “seek cooperative advantage”, to “embrace complexity” and to “invite meaningful scrutiny” as means of “choosing our path” and “seizing the opportunity ahead” in what it describes as the “New Ecology of Social Benefit”.

There is a whole new language here, a kind of fusion of spiritual values with the more strategic concerns of innovative business management and leadership. How else could such warm relational words like “embrace” and “invite” coexist with tough-minded words like “exploit” and “seize”?

The important thing to my mind is that the values enshrined in spiritual-sounding language must provide more than a rhetorical gloss or veneer, but are the very core of what motivates us. Honoring the primacy of these values will ensure that we don’t get the balance wrong and that we don’t fall captive to a soulless performance culture driven by managerialism and obsessed with short-term delivery of measurable targets and goals. The demoralising and dispiriting effect of this imbalance has been well documented in studies exposing the stress suffered by young people going through educational systems dominated by excessive testing and assessment regimes and later coerced and enslaved by an oppressive work culture. The word “deliver” in its original sense means to “liberate”, not to oppress.

The Islamic concept of khilafah is rooted in the balance that is such a beautiful aspect of the broader Islamic worldview and it can provide us with a way to balance the competing demands of upholding core values and improving efficiency and effectiveness. The balance scale (mizan) is the symbol in the Qur’an of harmony in creation and of cosmic equilibrium, as well as justice and retribution for deeds in this life (Qur’an 55:5-9). Models of institutional administration based on this concept can resolve the competing tensions between values and facts, between ideals and practical tasks, between heart and mind, between cooperation and competition, between a collaborative spirit and top-down decision making, and between an approach which upholds the dignity of man and individual human needs and yet also recognises the need to tackle tasks effectively and enhance productivity and results. [7]

But I say again that this balance is not achieved by mere calculation, by trying to find some kind of numerical equivalence between moral principles and other priorities which are more concerned with performance and effectiveness. We cannot sidestep, neutralize or cancel out ethical values and moral principles in this way, and we must not reduce them to the rhetoric of spin or the high-sounding phrases in mission statements to which we pay only lip service. The achievement of the ideal balance in the stewardship model must depend on the absolute precedence of core values whose essence can never be compromised even if their forms can be adjusted to the contemporary context. We must hold above all to the spiritual and moral imperatives of responsible stewardship, trusteeship, justice, equity, and compassion, charitable deeds, service to others, and striving to do what is right. Ultimately all these imperatives reflect the Love of God and the Love of the totality of His Creation, a love which resides in the depths of all human souls.  The poet Hafiz equates the Trust (amanah) itself with Love in two of his odes. In his vision, the Trust that God proposed to all creation was Love, and Man in his madness alone had the temerity to assume Love’s responsibility. The word “philanthropy” (from Greek phil- loving + anthropos man, mankind) itself means “love of mankind”.

Peter Drucker has said that “The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday’s logic”, and this is undoubtedly a useful maxim in envisioning the future of philanthropy and the seeds of change within it.

But I would want to rewrite his maxim as follows: “The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act without love.”

ENDNOTES

1 F. Sherif, A Guide to the Contents of the Qur’an, Ithaca Press, 1995.
2 Susan V. Berresford, “American Philanthropic Values and the Future of Philanthropy”, New York Regional Association of Grantmakers Annual Meeting, May 11, 1999, New York Public Library). 
3 See Helmut K Anheier and Diana Leat, From Charity to Creativity: Philanthropic Foundations in the 21st century, a report published in 2002 by COMEDIA in association with the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. Anheier is Centennial Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics, and Leat is a visiting fellow at the Centre for Civil Society (LSE).  See also Professor Anheier’s recently published book Creative Philanthropy in the 21st Century (Routledge: London and New York).
4 See Lincoln C. Chen, “Future of Philanthropy: Philanthropy for Global Equity”, Executive Seminar, Hauser Center, Harvard University, Denver, May 10, 2002.
5 “The Future of Philanthropy for Our City and Beyond”, keynote speech by Carolyn Milne, President and CEO, Hamilton Community Foundation, January 24, 2005.
6 Katherine Fulton and Andrew Blau, “Looking Out for the Future: An Orientation for 21st Century Philanthropists”.
7 For the application of this model to educational administration, see the comprehensive proposals by Aref T. M. Atari in “Christian ‘Service-Stewardship’ and Islamic ‘Khalifah’: Emerging Models in Educational Administration.” American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, Vol. 17, Summer 2000, No. 2, pp. 29-56.