A friend mentioned this: “Millions of Muslims from all corners of the world will flock to Saudi Arabia during the next couple of weeks for the annual Hajj pilgrimage and the Saudi government will have no qualms in granting them a visa, accommodation in 1-5 star hotels and round-the-clock transportation and food (though they do charge for all of these). It would be an act that will please God and bring good fortune to Muslim individuals and the entire Muslim community… Hundreds of thousands of Muslims from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries are living in dire condition in refugee camps located in Muslim states such as Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan etc. but they cannot go to Saudi Arabia to seek refuge while also serving the House of God because they will create ‘cultural and societal problems’ and it will be very ‘expensive to house them’.” Do you agree with my friend? Or not? Either way, explain why.
The author says:
- Saudi provides food, accommodation etc to Hajj pilgrims.
- This act is good for the muslim community
- Many muslims are living in dire conditions across the world. But they cannot seek refuge in Saudi because there will be socio-cultural problems and expensive to house them. Is this correct?
Why I disagree:
1. Saudi does NOT provide accommodation, food, lodging, transportation etc. They charge the pilgrims and as such the point of doing good for the Muslim community does not arise. No FREE service has been provided. Many people from Bengal and north eastern states come to Apollo hospital, Chennai for treatment. Can we say Apollo provides service for the eastern Indians and why can't it provide, instead, free medical service to Bangladeshi refugees?
The question of replacing "paying customers=pilgrims" with non-paying refugees does not arise. Why should Saudi have any qualms (problems) providing infrastructure (hotels, restaurants etc to pilgrims? Pilgrims are customers, they won't come if facilities are not good. This is like saying, Saravana Bhavan (or Pizza Hut) provides food to so many people, why can't it provide free food for all Srilankan refugees instead?
2. The persons who are spending money on Hajj are the pilgrims. The right question may be: Why can't each pilgrim instead of going all the way to Mecca and spending $1000 for the trip, cancel the trip and contribute $400 to the refugees? Charity towards needy people is more important than a trip to Hajj.
3. Saudi is an oil rich country. Another valid question could be "why can't Saudi help the refugees financially?"
In the case of Hajj related tourism, pilgrims come, enjoy the facilities (and pay) and leave. In the case of refugees, they will come and won't be able to pay and won't leave. The only thing that is common is the Hajj related stuff which will benefit both the pilgrims and the refugees. The author has mixed two different things.
Additional reading:
Why are Syrian refugees fleeing in a hurry now: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/04/syrian-refugee-crisis-why-has-it-become-so-bad
No comments:
Post a Comment