In recent years, slogans like “abolish billionaires” and “tax the rich” have gained traction, reflecting broader discussions about economic inequality, wealth distribution, and systemic injustices. “Tax the rich” calls for a progressive tax system where the wealthiest individuals pay a higher percentage of their income aiming to reduce income inequality and generate revenue for public goods and services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Meanwhile, “abolish billionaires” seeks to dismantle the structures that allow for such vast disparities in wealth, ensuring fair wages and upward mobility. By redistributing wealth, resources can be more evenly spread across communities so that everyone has access to basic needs and opportunities.

It’s not hard to see why these slogans resonate with the masses, especially as social media highlights the grotesque levels of wealth flaunted by the elite. The recent wedding of Anant Ambani, youngest son of Asia’s richest man Mukesh Ambani, and pharmaceutical heiress Radhika Merchant, is a glaring example of billionaire extravagance.

The events looked less like a wedding and more like a PR campaign for the family’s immense wealth and network. Social media is rife with videos of the rich and famous mingling in lavish settings, adorned in couture outfits and enjoying gourmet meals.

The wedding has been the talk of the town not only because Mukesh Ambani is one of the richest men in the world, but also due to the obscene display of wealth and the eye-watering amount of money spent on the celebrations. Estimates of the total cost vary, but the consensus is upwards of $600 million USD. In a country where over 33% of the population lives below the poverty line, these openly broadcasted displays of wealth seem immoral at the most basic level. 

It was inevitable that this wedding would give rise to questions on the social responsibilities of the ultra-rich rich along with a comparison between their expenditures and contributions to charitable causes. 

Philanthropy is often seen as the rich giving away their money to the poor. However, the truth is that seldom happens. Some billionaires might donate their money out of the goodness of their hearts, but most of the time, it is an attempt by the rich to sanitise their wealth through philanthropic donations. The Ambanis are no different. In their attempt to make their lavish wedding events seem more palatable, the family held a mass wedding ceremony for 50 “underprivileged”, with pictures of the families of the bride and groom personally feeding 2,000 villagers as part of a pre-wedding ritual in March. However, is that enough to offset the excessive display we have seen so far? 

This begs the question, who truly benefits from the philanthropy of billionaires and why are billionaires generous, but never socially just?

The on-ground reality is that philanthropy often reinforces the status quo rather than changing it. In the US, the most philanthropic nation in the world, less than a fifth of big donations go to the poor. In the UK, two-thirds of millionaire donations over a decade went to higher education, with half of that going to Oxford and Cambridge. Arts received significant funding, while poverty alleviation got a fraction. Despite the increasing number of philanthropists, inequalities keep rising and this is due in large to the fact that philanthropy mainly reflects the whims and desires of the wealthy which can sometimes align with societal priorities, while other times contradict them. 

Philosophical arguments often try to justify the rich’s right to use their resources as they please. We saw similar sentiments across social media these last few months regarding the Ambani wedding. Arguments such as “it is their hard-earned money” or “they give enough to charity” were common, with any valid criticism being dismissed as jealousy. What people fail to realise is that most empires, at their core, are businesses that prioritise their own interests and bottom lines, often at the expense of everyday people. Recently, Reliance Jio, India’s biggest telecom service provider owned by the Ambanis, announced a 12-27% hike in mobile tariffs. According to TRAI data, Jio has over 470 million mobile subscribers, holding a 41% market share.

Beyond prioritising profits over people, billionaires also receive tax relief on charitable donations, meaning that ordinary taxpayers subsidise these donations. In 2019, tax breaks in England and Wales meant a £100 donation cost a standard taxpayer £80 and a high-rate taxpayer only £55, with the state covering the rest. Not only that, donations by wealthy donors often come with conditions that give power to the donors. These donors receive honorary degrees, board positions, and advisory seats at tables where they rarely belong. Thus, it is fair to say that philanthropy often benefits the donors more than the recipients. 

Tax deductions and enhanced social status are common byproducts of rich people’s charity, which rarely address systemic issues that perpetuate inequality, sometimes right in their own backyards through unfair wages to their employees.

The trend dates to the late 19th and early 20th centuries when imperial industrialists, like Andrew Carnegie, avoided addressing economic justice despite their philanthropy. Carnegie, once the world’s richest man, donated millions to libraries, education, and peace initiatives. History books often praise him as a saviour, but only in footnotes do they mention that his wealth came from exploiting workers and perpetuating economic inequality. His philanthropy failed to address the root causes of the social and economic issues of his time.

This pattern continues today, including the situation in Gaza. Billionaire philanthropists and countries may have announced donating substantial amounts to humanitarian aid in Gaza in the form of food, medical supplies, and infrastructure support. However, all these efforts are useless to the people in Palestine as they do not address the root causes of their suffering. The ongoing blockade, the free rein to Israel to commit war crimes and build illegal settlements without repercussions, continuous funding of deadly weapons arsenal and the systemic injustice of apartheid, all have led to the humanitarian crisis that requires solutions through political and economic justice, not charitable donations.

It is high time that the sources of philanthropic wealth and the intentions behind such generosity are scrutinised.  While charity can provide immediate and necessary relief, it cannot substitute for justice because true justice requires addressing the root causes of inequality and suffering. 

As Muslims, we can’t help but reflect on how the fundamentals of our faith demand economic and social justice through Zakat, the principle of which ensures equitable distribution of wealth. The Qur’an and Sunnah consistently advocate for the wealthy to support the less fortunate and to avoid wasteful and ostentatious displays of wealth. 

Ibn ‘Abbas informed Ibn az-Zubayr, ‘I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, “He is not a believer whose stomach is filled while his neighbour goes hungry.”’ (Al-Albani)

This is why Islamic principles will always stand in contrast to the current world order of gluttonous capitalism. Islam encourages trade and earning but it also prohibits waste of resources. It is true that personal celebrations are a right, however shouldn’t current times of economic hardship dictate that they be kept private or at least be accompanied with empathy and social responsibility?

It is our collective responsibility to question whether philanthropic funds are benefiting the community and addressing social inequities. It urges us to contemplate our current mindset around Zakat and Sadaqah. Do they truly reflect the principles of economic justice and collective care? 

Maybe we need to ask ourselves that as the spectacles designed to entertain and distract us become more opulent and ridiculous, is it captivation or repulsion that keeps us glued to the surreal parody of wealth and extravagant weddings or both? And even if it is, isn’t it high time we collectively rise against such revolting practices? As the circus of billionaires continues to highlight the vast economic inequality and the desperation of the poor, one can’t help but imagine if this is what the French revolutionaries saw just before the revolt. With the temperatures rising and the world burning, is it perhaps time to “eat the rich”?

If philanthropy were to align with justice, it would require a conscious effort to incorporate changes across all systems. Changes that can ensure that billionaires do not own politicians and policy makers in order to make laws that favour them and starve the rest of us. Without systemic changes, charity in its current form will continue to preserve the power dynamics and inequalities that philanthropists supposedly seek to mitigate. 

One thing is clear though, liberation from systemic injustices is beyond individual actions and capacities. It is our duty to collectively challenge the status quo and dismantle structures that perpetuate inequality and injustices across the world. As Maya Angelou said, “None of us are free until all of us are free”, which is why true liberation demands that we all work towards a world where philanthropy is not a gift bestowed upon us by benevolent overlords nor is it a substitute for justice. True philanthropy should aim at creating sustainable, long-term solutions rather than providing temporary relief, even if said solutions cause discomfort to some of us. Policies like progressive taxation and wealth redistribution are one of the few ways forward to confront the opulence and absurdity of extreme wealth in order to create a society where resources are equitably shared, and the economy works for everyone, not just a privileged few.

---

References

1. How Philanthropy Benefits the Super-rich
2. Reliance Jio, India’s biggest telecom service provider raises tariff