Sh Muhammad Khalfan
Clearly, such thinking stems from a narrow outlook. The human being enjoys a disposition that yearns for the salvation of every other human being. Therefore indifference is an alien concept to his nature. ‘Not being able to help the oppressed’ does not necessitate indifference on our part.
Firstly, our natural conscience would like to know the situation of those of our brethren who are suffering throughout the world.
Secondly, if we are materially unable, Almighty Allah has opened the door of prayer for us. Through prayers for the destitute, things can really change.
Thirdly, there are so many things that we can do together to crush the power of the world arrogance, but we do not realize the same. Our businessmen who import goods from countries like Israel and buy them at relatively low costs, can stop such transactions, so that they may not indirectly take part in killing the innocent Palestinians. Many of us indirectly promote the commodities that the world arrogance produces. If we were to boycott such products, these groups would never be as materially prosperous as they are. Today, if the Arab leaders were to wake up and stop bowing in front of the world arrogance, a great transformation can take place.
Salaams Sheikh,
ReplyDeleteThough I agree with your notion that we must keep up with current affairs and that there is a fundamental difference between being indifferent and not being able to do anything positive, I disagree with the ways in which we can make a positive impact. Having knowledge of what is happening as well as praying for those in distress is vital, however I don't believe boycotting is necessary. In my humble belief, every era had its own way of tackling a crisis.
Gandhi introduced the concept of Satyagraha (non-violent resistance) as a way of bringing down the British colonial rule which worked successfully at the time. In later decades, striking was used by the working class in the UK to prove a point on savage cuts imposed by the Thatcher government of the 80s. Boycotts became popular, especially amongst the Muslim community, during the 90s, a good example being M&S suffering as a result. Finally, the noughties brought about the advent of the internet age bringing closer global connections which led to petitions being most effective.
The point I am trying to make is every era has its own effective and positive way of addressing a situation and I believe we are now overdue for a change in attitude and action towards contemporary issues. For far too long, Muslims have used an outdated system to attempt to bring down despotic regimes or to bring about change to policy. What we should be doing is "pressurising".
"Pressurising" works simply by putting pressure on the government to do something about an issue. This system can also apply to the media too. Bring a group of people to write individual letters/emails, call into radio stations/TV outlets, or comment on articles/policies as to whether they agree or disagree. If a news article gets 100 positive comments from people encouraging the writer to continue writing balanced arguements, the writer continues. If we make our voices heard and let the editor of a newspaper know that 100 (individual) people did not like a biased article, editors will bend over backwards to make sure it won't happen again to keep their readership.
Apologies for my rant but it is something that I feel passionate about. I enjoy your writings and look forward to all your posts.
Remember me in your duas,
Ammar