That's not funny

Cost of performing one’s obligatory duty

Performing Hajj is a sacred obligation and a lifelong dream for Muslims. Yet, fulfilling this religious duty is increasingly becoming too expensive.

Soaring costs, profit-driven services, and unfavourable currency exchange rates are turning Hajj into a privilege of the wealthy rather than an affordable call to worship for all believers. Hajj is not an obligation reserved for the affluent.

It is one of the pillars of Islam, a duty intended for every able Muslim. I believe it should be treated as a public good, benefiting the entire community, staying accessible to all, and protected from exploitation and commercial interests. While Hajj requires intricate logistics and infrastructure, these realities do not justify turning it into a business or letting it be commodified.

In South Africa, many prospective pilgrims are priced out, with costs beyond what working-class prospective pilgrims can afford. This forces many to delay or abandon the journey altogether, which is unacceptable.

Muslim organisations and the public must advocate for regulated pricing that preserves affordability and accessibility for all pilgrims. If we permit Hajj to be consumed by commercial motives, we risk eroding the very essence of this blessed journey. Preserving the spiritual integrity of Hajj means capping profits and ensuring it remains a truly public good.

Calling for lower Hajj prices is not just an economic concern, but a moral and religious duty to ensure equal access to one of Islam’s most sacred obligations. | MOHAMED SAEED Pietermaritzburg

So cruelty is just a prank to you?

You want to know the real joke?

The fact that people still pretend that cruelty is comedy. That they film trauma and call it content. That they profit from pain and label it “just for fun.” The moment pain becomes entertainment, the joke isn’t on the victim – it’s on the humanity of whoever’s watching.

“Oh, it’s just a prank.” That phrase has become a shield for bullies, a shelter for cowards who weaponise laughter. It’s the modern excuse for humiliation, for violence, for fear sold as a joke.

Not only does it justify brutality – it turns it into sensationalism.

Telling someone their parents died – just to film their collapse. Pretending to cheat on your spouse to watch them scream, cry, and beg. Giving fake job offers to the unemployed, then saying, “Relax, it’s a joke.”

Convincing someone they have cancer or a deadly disease, then laughing when they break down. Forcing a mentally ill fellow to perform like a clown on camera while mocking and laughing offscreen. Spraying fake blood in front of someone with PTSD. Putting itching powder in someone’s private clothes. Smashing eggs on people’s heads without warning. Pouring milk, hot sauce, flour, or even garbage on someone in public. Slapping an innocent’s face and running away. Tying firecrackers to people’s backs. Locking them in a room. Filming a panic attack. Laughing.

That’s not a prank. That’s sadism. That’s psychological extortion. What kind of person gets off on another’s pain? What kind of mind sees fear, tears, or humiliation and thinks, “This is content!” What kind of coward hides behind “It’s just a prank” instead of admitting they enjoy hurting people? The answer? Someone who lacks empathy. Someone who needs control. Someone who gets high on power.

This isn’t entertainment. It’s emotional violence. And what’s worse? The audience laughs. They cheer. They share. They make monsters famous. We’ve normalized abuse under the mask of humor. We’ve turned real human pain into viral trends. We’ve taught a generation that if it gets views, it’s worth doing – no matter who gets hurt. If your “joke” leaves someone shaking, crying, broken, embarrassed, or mentally destroyed – then you’re not a joker; you’re the villain.

Stop calling it a prank. Call it what it is: Cowardice. Cruelty. Evil.

If someone walks away bleeding on the inside, then it wasn’t a prank. It was abuse. And abuse is never funny. Not even for views. Not even “as a joke.” | Yumna Zahid Ali Karachi, Pakistan

Life in Castro’s Cuba contradicted by truth

Kirtan Bhana’s eulogy of Fidel Castro is so contradicted by truth that it equates to crediting Stalin with popularising tourism to Siberia.

It beggars belief that despite his learned association with diplomacy, Mr Bhana attributes dignity, freedom, justice and human rights to Castro’s 49 years’ dictatorship of Cuba.

Opinions willfully devoid of factual context amount to diatribe and thus have no credibility. Lauding Castro’s legacy as inspiring freedom and justice suggests Bhana’s concept of those values equates either with how Hitler and Stalin upheld them or that somehow he is severely deluded.Castro replaced Batista’s dictatorship with his own.

His initial promise of civil freedoms, reforms and honest administration lasted five minutes. Instead he nationalised all industry and production, banned private enterprise and never abided by the principles of the International Labour Organisation.

Through fear and coercion he enshrined one-party state rule, institutionalized suppression of dissent and incarceration of political opposition. To ensure compliance he installed a state security network of surveillance and intimidation no different from Hitler’s Gestapo or communist East Germany’s Stasi. All aspects of life – culture, sports, the arts and communication – fell under the direction of state ministries. Indoctrination was the objective of education. His much-acclaimed healthcare system applied only to the elite of his regime. For the masses, its services were very Third World.Castro certainly excelled as an architect of economic ruin. Trapped in a time warp, constant economic shortages were a hallmark of his despotism. Food shortages were endemic; food rationing was a way of life. For the masses access to water was via water carts and buckets. Little wonder that more than 1.5 million Cubans managed to flee Castro’s utopia.

Based on the above, Mr Bhana’s assertion that Castro “believed in the boundless capacity of people to change their destiny,” is outrageous. Cubans were never accorded that opportunity. Castro was never the champion of the downtrodden nor the servant of the people.

All of which raises the question why such blatant falsehoods are featured because an article extolling the benefits of apartheid would not be published, despite it having a measure of credibility as the quality of life capsizes under the ANC’s dystopia. | DR DUNCAN DU BOIS Bluff

Don’t expect help from the ombud

In her article on cybercrime on Friday, Dieketseng Maleke voices opinions and statements given to her by the NFO Ombudsman. There are other points that readers should be made aware of.

Banks accept no responsibility when money is stolen from one customer by another customer. Yes! Same bank. In such case

s, banks will accuse the victim of compromising her banking details even when they can’t prove it. When a bank knows that one its customers has committed fraud against another it expects the victim to report the case to a law enforcement agency. It does nothing itself. I know of one instance where the fraudster is a long-standing customer of a bank, and SAPS, after three years, has been unable to make contact with it. Appalling. And the bank couldn’t care less.

Banks are not using the power of AI to avoid fraud even though much is being written about it. The late Douglas Gibson, in this paper, pleaded those involved in money to work together to tackle cybercrime.

It is all very well for the Ombudsman to warn the public that it is happening and that it has to protect itself, but the players in the money game, and particularly the banks, must get off their backsides and take responsibility. Being a scorecard keeper isn’t helping, Lady Ombudsman. There is a further important issue for the readers’ attention. Online banking systems require the involvement of mobile operators. The Ombudsman makes no reference to this. Fraudsters, working with an accomplice employed by the mobile operator, arrange for a SIM swop so that the bank’s OTP is diverted away from the account holder.

Banks and mobile operators need to work on a solution. When the fraudster is a bank customer, one would expect the bank’s internal fraud team to make immediate contact with the mobile operator and take responsibility for reporting the whole episode to SAPS. But no, banks refuse to do this, even although one mobile operator reported in the press that it had found over 600 cases of internal fraud.

Other than reporting statistics, the Ombudsman is unfortunately not helping to fight the curse at all. And certainly not the banks. | Chris Richards Craighall Park