وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَىٰ
“And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.” (Az-Zumar 39:7)

Let them talk about greater goods and collective benefits. Let them whisper of necessary sacrifices and community stability. Let them craft elaborate reasons why someone else’s pain is a fair price for an ideal future. We remain unmoved.

Community politics’ careful arithmetic exposes a dangerous idea: one person’s suffering can be traded for the benefit of many. This notion, embraced by those who never bear its cost, suggests that community harmony can be bought with another’s pain. It is offered in measured tones and cloaked in wisdom and strategy. “Sometimes we must overlook smaller harms to prevent greater ones,” they say. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” they add.

Yet this reasoning has a fatal flaw. It assumes that decision-makers have the right to spend others’ pain as if it were currency. It presumes that we, with our limited insight, can fully understand the consequences of allowing injustice. Those who use this logic never risk their own well-being; they are always ready to trade in someone else’s suffering.

At first, the deal seems fair: sacrifice one person’s justice for the stability of many. Let the victim’s pain go unnoticed so the community can hold onto its unity. Allow a wrongdoer to remain because removing them might cause further chaos. But every time we accept such a trade, we not only betray the victim, we erode our collective moral authority. Every compromise sets a precedent; every concession becomes policy until we build a system of injustice on a foundation of expedience.

Supporters of these compromises hide behind the notion of pragmatism. They talk about choosing battles, exercising patience, and maintaining delicate balances. Yet their pragmatism is selective. They always find reasons why a victim must wait, why a wrongdoer must be tolerated, and why justice should be delayed for a plan that never comes.

We reject this logic completely. The moment we accept that someone’s suffering is negotiable, we lose the very values we claim to protect. Unity built on hidden injustice is not true unity; it is collective complicity in disguise. Peace achieved by trading in pain is not peace; it is oppression masked as stability.

Our stance is clear: we will not sacrifice the vulnerable for convenience. We reject the notion that some must suffer so others can prosper. Our community’s true strength lies not in a false unity achieved by silencing dissent, but in our willingness to face hard truths and protect those most at risk.

Let those who benefit from these compromises call us rigid or unrealistic. Let them speak of nuance when they are merely bargaining with injustice. We know that a path of unwavering principles is harder, messier, and more costly in the short term. But we also know that every time we sacrifice an individual for a supposed greater good, we poison the community we claim to protect.

A genuine greater good cannot be built on ignored suffering. No benefit is worth the cost of lost principles. No stability is so valuable that it can be bought with sacrificed lives. We stand firm in our conviction: the moment we accept that someone’s pain is negotiable, we lose everything worth preserving.