(Original post by Perseveranze)
Better than not helping the needy and relying on "feeling sorry for them" to ever think about helping them.
1. Welfare (benefits) is an Islamic institution, first brought in by Umar(ra), the second Caliphate. So, I have no idea what your point is.
2. Most of the people that give charity to those the governments can't/don't reach in these "secular countries" are actually Christians/Religious people. You're also living in a more economically developed country, so what little you give in ratio may still be higher due to higher level of wealth compared to charity given by poorer nations.
You give Sadaqah (volunteery charity) out of compassion and you do the same for Zakat. For people who do not care, and have no compassion, then Zakat basically says, ok, we've been nice to you, encouraged you to give all year out, and you still don't care for those people starving of hunger; so we have the power to take 2.5 million of your 100 million wealth by force.
ie. People dying from hunger are more important than your petty love for money.
Probably the same amount that give out of pure compassion do, much less
. If you read and understand Islamic Theology, the religion is based on charity, it's just a fundemental part. Even take Zakat out of the picture, you would still be giving to charity just like any other person is due to righteous intentions.
And I simply stated the flaw in that. You only give out of compassion, not because the person might really need your help. Compassion is purely based on how you might feel on any case that is presented to you.
The article, does not say that Atheists give more to Charity compared to Religious (because they don't). The person who's starving of hunger at the end will probably want someone to help him regardless of reason, than wait for someone to feel sorry enough to eventually want to help him.
Islam is the only religion that gives dignity to the poor. [Ramsey Clark, Former U.S. Attorney General]