It’s our duty to combat hunger

The USDA found that 1 in 10 Minneapolis households have food insecurity, meaning that they don’t exactly know when or if they will get their next meal. Of these households, KMSP predicts that about 231,000 people who are affected are children.

Moved by these statistics in Minneapolis and across the country, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association sent over 250 delegates from across the nation to meet their local representatives at Capitol Hill, to seek their support in their fight against hunger. I met with Rep. Erik Paulsen’s office to discuss how we can improve our local efforts here in the Twin Cities.

The prophet Muhammad said, “He is a not a believer, who eats his fill while his neighbor goes hungry.” As a Muslim, I believe that it is our duty to combat hunger. Fasting during the month of Ramadan helps by allowing us to empathize with the less fortunate and enlivens the fight against hunger that my youth group has taken.

MinnPost welcomes original letters from readers on current topics of general interest. Interested in joining the conversation? Submit your letter to the editor.

The choice of letters for publication is at the discretion of MinnPost editors; they will not be able to respond to individual inquiries about letters.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (8)

  1. Submitted by Steve Rose on 07/21/2014 - 02:53 pm.

    Traveled from all over the nation to meet local representatives?

    “the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association sent over 250 delegates from across the nation to meet their local representatives at Capitol Hill,”

    While people go hungry, it seems wasteful to incur travel expenses for 250 people to meet their local representatives in a remote location. Representatives have an obligation to meet with constituents right in their District.

    Instead of teaching youth to look to the government for the answers to problems of their community, teach them how to feed some people.

    • Submitted by Pat Berg on 07/21/2014 - 04:44 pm.

      Optics count

      A large delegation arriving at a single place at a single time to discuss a single problem has a much more focused impact. The effect is diffused if instead there are many smaller meetings with smaller groups in many different places.

      You may not like what appears to be more inefficient from your perspective, but from another perspective, this may very well be a better use of the available resources.

      • Submitted by Steve Rose on 07/22/2014 - 08:21 am.

        Delegation Size

        It seems a larger delegation could be assembled right here to speak with Representative Erik Paulsen, if diffusion were really a concern.

        By the way, isn’t he one of those evil Republicans? Should children be exposed to the likes of him?

  2. Submitted by Todd Hintz on 07/21/2014 - 04:10 pm.

    Assistance

    Well, don’t hold your breath looking for conservative Christians to help feed the poor. Their attitude is it’s the poor’s fault for being destitute in the first place and gosh, they should just go out and get an education. Never mind that it’s hard to study on an empty stomach.

    Mr. Ahmad, you did exactly the right thing by working to bring the problem to your representative’s attention and the attention of the public through this article. Ignore the nay-sayers who would just as soon slap your hand away as help you out. Keep up the good work!

    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 07/22/2014 - 08:16 am.

      Again, with the facts-challenged “beliefs”?

      I am sure that it comes as no surprise to you that liberals consider giving away other peoples money as a charity; true charity comes from the government.

      Liberals make more and give far less.

      Read it for yourself:

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

      Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

      “Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

      Assuming the average travel expense for the junket was $1000, a quarter million was spent 250 people to DC to speak to a politician. You consider that good work?

      • Submitted by jason myron on 07/22/2014 - 11:30 am.

        Wow…

        a 2008 article cited by a conservative news aggregator that was actually written a year and a half before that and consists of ONE PERSONS findings….that’s supposed to be game, set and match? Considering your many posts on climate change, denying numerous real data supplied by an overwhelming number of credible, scientific sources, I’m not surprised that you would consider this as “hard evidence” in an attempt to prove your point.

        • Submitted by Steve Rose on 07/22/2014 - 12:33 pm.

          You have nothing to support your original assertion?

          Nothing, but an ad hominem attack?

          Syracuse University is not a conservative source. If interested, read the book by Arthur Brooks. Brooks was surprised by the results of his study, as it flies in the face of conventional liberal spin.

          From Amazon.com:

          “We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? In his controversial study of America’s giving habits, Arthur C. Brooks shatters stereotypes about charity in America-including the myth that the political Left is more compassionate than the Right. Brooks, a preeminent public policy expert, spent years researching giving trends in America, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he identifies the forces behind American charity: strong families, church attendance, earning one’s own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals-not government-offer the best solution to social ills. But beyond just showing us who the givers and non-givers in America really are today, Brooks shows that giving is crucial to our economic prosperity, as well as to our happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people.”

  3. Submitted by Steve Rose on 07/23/2014 - 03:35 pm.

    I looked

    Honestly, I looked to find something to support your position. I couldn’t find anything either.

    Other research regarding charitable giving reached similar conclusions. The generosity index from the Catalogue for Philanthropy indicates that people living in red states are the most likely to give to nonprofit organizations, while Northeastern states, the heart of liberalism, are the least likely to give

Leave a Reply