|
|
With the rather recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, it has occurred to me that one of the main reasons why Turning Point became successful is that he has financial support from various groups. And his recently turning his back on his financiers might have cost him his life.
Compared to a hadith I read, when the Pagan Meccan leader Abu Sufyan asked the Roman Emperor Heraclius in his conflict with Mohammed, the Roman Emperor ask ,"Do the young people follow him or older people follow him? Do the poor people follow him or do the rich people follow him?". Abu Sufyan says it is the poor and the young people that follow him. Heraclius then says Mohammed is probably a real prophet because successful movements you have to motivate the young people and the poor people.
However, grassroot movements never became successful unless they have financial support. Mohammed would not have success without help from his "friend" Abu Bakr who donated his wealth to Mohammed for his movement.
However, once these movement became successful, the financiers of these movements would assert their agenda.
Can anyone think of grassroots movement that became successful without aid of financiers? I can only think of Jesus as an example but his message got hijacked by powerful people after his death.
What do you guys think?
|
Locked
