With eyes wide opened, and a functioning brain in a skull, it wouldn’t take much to realize that myth; you can group Arabs into categories but sealing them all, from Oman to Mauritania, in one bag and present them to the world, or even to themselves, as a unity couldn’t be further from the truth.

Once upon a time, I used to indulge myself into endless debates with non-Arabs; topics were all emerging from me defending an accusation or another, bashing someone for having some nasty prejudice about my people, and more or less laughing out at the utter stone-age perceptions many have on us, back then, my own perception of the Arab world was limited for I haven’t experienced life in Arabia outside of the Laventine. Now, my attitude has entirely changed; when someone starts the same old females-oppression topic, I no longer negotiate, my first reaction would be ‘I am Jordanian, if you like, we can both go get a Gulf boy and give him a headache’!

We might all speak the same language, but so do Singapore and Scotland, we might share the same religion, but so do Angola and Italy, we might be neighbors, but so are Germany and France, in fact, an Algerian would be more comfortable communicating with a French than he would with an Omani, a Wahabi Saudi would fight a Shiite Bahraini to death, and what is looked upon as the norm in Lebanon would sentence you to stoning in Saudi!

Contrary to what it might appear to the misfed eye, Arabs don’t even share the same concerns; when the genocide of Gaza took place, the streets of Amman and Damascus were boiling in rage, while the average Saudi and Emarati couldn’t be more indifferent. Even when the events were topping speech starters in Cairo, it couldn’t be more different than it was in Amman, in Cairo, the concern was jammed upon those who were attacking the Egyptian policies of shutting the borders to Gazans, you could sense that the fact that innocents were being annihilated in Gaza was barely mentioned.

Suffice to say, the Arab world is one hell of a world, it’s creepy, interesting, contradicted, gloomy and shiny, it might be many things, but it sure is not united.

cross posted on The Rhetorical Blabber

When I go to coffee shops and see boys and girls are sitting there and just want to show themselves off there, I laugh inside and praise the coffee shop owner. Because he has understood youth stupidity and knows how to abuse them. They pay huge on ice creams, orange juices and even mineral water; just to show off.

When I see those books that say for example “Be a great cook in 24 hours”, “how to become rich in 24 days”, “how to be a great manager in three steps”, “how to influence and seduce opposite gender in one day”, “how to become computer expert in one month” and etc. I laugh again! Because the writer has understood people stupidity: he knows that everyone wants everything instantly; then his book sells! I praise writer’s intelligence.

When I see bunch of people who believe in a god called Allah, prophet called Mohammad, religion called Islam with so many Imams, I again laugh! That’s not because of their belief, but because of their stupidity. Then I praise Iranian Islamic regime since it has understood where people’s stupidity exactly is and are enjoying it. Everyone should praise such intelligence, and that’s why I love them.

That reminds me Niccolò Machiavelli. And I believe it’s the best government and regime for these people. Enjoy it guys!

Yesterday, I met someone who claims to be the last massager, he as his predecessors manage to gather some followers around him; I approached the crowed and heard him saying.
Preacher : Religion has done no-good to humankind; it divided us, with divisions and separations hate and hostility are born.
One of his followers stood and asked what is the deference between what you preach and other religions?
Preacher : I preach fact not fiction, what scientist have discovered, through scientific method, what is based on undisputed evidence and proof.
Follower : Assuming we placed all religions into human- myth and superstations library’s section. What should we believe in?
Preacher :First : as per DNA research and fossils record , mankind is one big family, there is no biological deference , if for example , Osama Bin Laden has heart-disease we could replace it with George W Bush’s heart , If any Israeli soldier has anima we could make blood-donation from any Palestinian , at the core we are one family , the shell is littlie deferent, some of us are white due to living in cold climate , others are black due to sunny weather , some of us are well-built due to good nutrition others are not due to poor diet, some of us are rich and well-dressed others are not ( financial capabilities ) however, weather, food , Money , language , religion , nationality , tradition all that has affected the shell only , but it can never reach the core ,
Second: as per the data that has come from Telescope, our universe is incredibly vast and huge, and we are just lonely tiny dust hovering meaninglessly in the space. At the same time, our universe contains a lot of unseen small things, that remain to be studded and discovered, microbiological stuff, atoms, electrons etc > Therefore, putting these facts into consideration, I would find it hard to hate ( let alone kill) my fellow human, in the contrary, I would give him a good hug , and work with him to discover this mysterious universe, and to maintain and clean our home Earth .
Follower : most of the people are aware of these facts, yet we see them hate and kill each other?
Preacher : it takes religion ( good lie ) to make good people commit evil deeds, like you are the chosen nation , or those who do not believe in Cruises are inferior , or those who do not believe in Allah are inferior, or ( the latest version of good lies {the money } ) those who do not have money are inferior. When small white lie is believed by group of people, it does make a disastrous consequence. Because its lie.
Follower : if there is no hell and heaven > where morality come from? And what would be the ultimate goal for us as human species?
Preacher : The golden rule, treat others like you want other to treat you > second the ultimate goat would be , all human should come together to unveil the puzzles around us, to discover and explore earth and universe and everything around.
At that point, preacher looked at me, and asked me to get closer and say what I think of what he said.
I paused for breath and said: what you have said does make sense; moreover, your massage is based on scientific facts. However, my religion does not allow apostasy, in fact I could be punished if I followed you> what I suggest though is, public transparent debate, with religious thinkers. Where you can take your massage to bigger audience, and if what you say is true, then let people hear and discuss and debate it publicly.

To be followed

Q: why do we want to prove Quran is man-made?
A: First: we believe it’s man-made because it contradictory and inconsistent (for the objective reader) just like so many other books that are being considered sacred. However, we might be wrong; Quran could be a Gods word that’s why we are requesting a debate ,with those believers to clarify this issue.
Second: if we are proved right, that will ultimately stop every Muslim extremist and terrorist from killing others, that will stop Mr. Osama Bin Ladn form convincing young-man to join his club, that will stop Somali extremist form beheading and stoning powerless people, that will stop extremist from blowing up themselves in Moscow’s Metro, Iraq, Afghanistan list goes on and on.
Q: How would you achieve that goal practically?
A: setting up an intellectual center in Abu Dhabi for free-thinkers, and after that asking for public debate between, both believers and disbelievers, the debate must be base on respect and objectivity.

Q: what if Quran believers have proved Quran is Gods words?
A: Then we should rest our case, and believe in Quran, and become devoted Muslims.
Q: what are your evidences that Quran is man-made?
A: So far we have gathered 40 evidence only, our goal is to make it hundred, and we should purplish that at our coming post.
Q: Why you are doing this?
A: We happen to believe in honesty, lie does not help, even if it’s comforting. Because eventually it leads to serious consequences, like what we are experiencing in our world today, religion is comforting lie.
Q: is there chance that you might be wrong?
A: Yes, that’s why we are desperate for debate.
Q: last question; what is your favorite religion? And why?
A: Sikhism, because it permits masturbating.

Hypocracy^[1] is understood as a so called democratic government in which hypocrisy rule i.e. the ruling party/individuals does not keep on what is being promised and/or told.

Iran:

Hijab is not mandatory

A thirty years later people queued desperately at polling places (even outside Iran) to cast their votes with slightest glimmer of hope to elect a new president who made the promise of “Freedom”. The elections led to bloody clashes between people and security guards, police and Basidj paramilitary forces. A large number of opponents of the regime including many students had to leave the country and seek safety abroad. Those arrested faced harsh prison times, torture and even cases of sexual abuse were reported^[2].

United States:

2009: Barack H. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize and at his lecutre he stated:

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan

Short after that more troops were sent to Afghanistan to secure the region and in hope of putting an end to this 9 year old war. A while after civilians were “mistakenly” killed by NATO troops.

Hillary Clinton in his speech on “Internet Freedom” in Jan. 2010 commented:

We are reinvigorating the Global Internet Freedom Task Force as a forum for addressing threats to Internet freedom around the world, and urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance.

Without considering that “Deep Packet Inspection” (a technology which is claimed to be sold by Nokia-Siemens Networks to Iranian government) is being also used in U.S.A. (for more see here)
Forgetting about the Yahoo! scandal which led to imprisoning and torturing a number of Chinese activists. Ignoring the fact that the website of a group of Iranian hackers known as “Iranian Cyber Army” -which hacked Twitter, Baidu, and some politically motivated Iranian websites- is being currently hosted on Yahoo! servers.

A countless number of such speeches and promises can be found throughout the history and they all share one common characteristic: being successful in uniting masses of people -even with various opinions and point of views- however based on empty words.

We are all familiar with this trick, we don’t even listen to what is being said by politicians! nevertheless they are our politicians, they got our vote of confidence (one way or another) and these are the ones in charge of decision making.

Iran and United States were chosen here as examples of two countries which on one hand have very different governmental structures and on the other hand both follow populism^[3].

Civil Society

Political structures are nowadays so complicated which makes it hard to follow and understand and as side effect unattractive for majority of people. A presidential election every four years (or similar, depending on country of residence) would be the most political activity one may be involved in and a decision based upon empty words and promises and what is being broadcast by mainstream media would not be a correct one.

One way to be involved and to get others involved in politics is to join grassroots, NGOs and to empower a civil society. One may underestimate the influential and success of such organizations and movements but at this point a brief look at the history of “Amnesty International” highlights the importance of such social bodies. The goal is to inform and take action.

Another way would be Civil Disobedience, which is defined,inter alia, by John Rawls as:

civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies^[4]

For example Ghandi’s movement in India can be categorized as civil disobedience, which had great success and contributed to independence of India.

According to political climate of one country, different approaches may be chosen in order to make political changes. It is just a matter of readiness of people to take part in different forms of action.

[1]: Adapted from Urban Dictionary. ^

[2]: more stories on: ^

• Human Rights Watch
• Guardian
• BBC News

[3]: The word “Populism” doesn’t have a generally accepted academic definition. The definition of “Cambridge Online Dictionary” as political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people’s needs and wishes can best represent of what is meant in this article. It is to consider that it is intended to represent wishes and it does not necessarily fulfill those needs and wishes. ^

[4] adapted from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ^

The Green Movement talks about human rights: the right to be equal before the law, the right to freedom without discrimination, the right to participate fully in government, the right to own property, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of thought, religion, education, opinion and speech, the right to a free press, the right of assembly, the right to work with just and favorable conditions in the work place, the right to unionize, the right to intellectual property, the right for a decent standard of living, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury with due process and with the assistance of counsel, and the right not to be punished in a cruel and unusual manner.

So what would the Ayatollahs say about these various human rights? Well, their actions speak louder than words. They send forth their riot police to quell dissent. They beat some people and imprison others. They torture as they see fit. They make a mockery of judicial proceedings, and sometimes, they choose to execute the innocent. Actions speak louder than words. My guess is that the Ayatollahs tolerate human rights, but only to the extent that such rights don’t interfere with their hold on power. They readily choose to sacrifice human rights, and human beings for that matter, to the extent necessary to consolidate their strong grip on the levers of political power.

The Manifesto of the Green Movement talks quite a bit about democracy. It states that in a true democracy the people are sovereign; they are the highest form of political authority. Democracy requires compromise among competing factions. “Everyone has a right to be heard.” We can choose our leaders and hold them accountable. “Laws and policies require majority support, but the rights of minorities are protected in various ways.” There should be a balance of power between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of power. Free and fair elections should be held at regular intervals. All parties and candidates should be able to campaign freely. As for religion, the Green Movement believes in a separation between church and state: “We believe God has no need for politics…the Mullahs would have more influence if they focused on religion.” And as for the economy, they state, “The economy should be based upon free market principles, and its aim should be economic development, increase of productivity, improvement of the standard of living, and achievement of prosperity for all citizens in Iran.”

What would the Ayatollahs say about these notions of democracy? Well, here again, actions speak louder than words. As for the idea that the power to rule comes from the people, they would say that the power comes from God, and as it so happens, God has entrusted that power to them. As for everyone’s right to be heard, they would say that their voice embodies God’s will, and should therefore be heard above all others. As for the rights of minorities, they would point out that minorities are out of step with the will of God, and are therefore not worthy of much consideration. As for free elections, they would allow the semblance of elections, but only among candidates which they approve. As for the separation between church and state heaven forbid, they would recognize no such separation since the power of the state is derived from God, and only they are entitled to define the nature of God and the substance of what He requires of us. And as for the economic resources of the nation, these too, as it happens, have been entrusted to them to do with as they wish, in the pursuit of goals to which they aspire.

So the question remains: Who will win in this existential struggle between these two competing visions for Iran, and beyond? The answer is: He will win who has the greatest faith in the truth of his convictions.

As the restless soul he was, he couldn’t stand a carefree life in the US and later became a leading of the Islamic revolutionary movements in the Middle East, organizing and training guerrillas and revolutionary forces in Algeria, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

After Islamic Revolution, he came back to Iran and was mysteriously killed in action, battling Iran-Iraq war on 1981.

Musa Sadr the Iranian-born Lebanese philosopher and prominent religious figure, was Chamran’s buddy in Lebanon. Chamran helped Musa Sadr and they together found the Amal Movement in southern Lebanon and fought alongside Amal guerrillas in the late 1970s.

Ṣadr was well known as a moderate, demanding that the Maronite Christians relinquish some of their power in favour of the Lebanese muslim community, but pursuing ecumenism and peaceful relations between the groups.

In August 1978, before Islamic Revolution in Iran, Musa Sadr and two other companions disappeared in an official trip to Libya.

They were never heard of again, though there’ve been hearsayes and unconvinsing reports suggesting he’s alive.

However, Chamran and Musa Sadr are not the only ones. Each time there’re similar examples in different countries of the Middle East. From Palestine to Lebanon, Iraq to Saudi Arabia, Egypt to Afghanistan, women or men, poets, writiers, politicians, artists and so on.

Whether directly by CIA, Mossad and whatever western secret service or indirectly via their puppets, everytime someone intelligent is working, writing or fighting for justice to heal the difficult life of people in the region, though moderate, something mysteriously happens. They’re ‘mysteriously’ assassinated, killed or kidnapped.

That’s where story of great men of the ME end up. Or maybe There’s not going to be an end for the story. Maybe “Great men never die” and “The End” is just to start from the beginning.

It is only in the late hours of the night
That I learn more about my sentience
I am aware of my true existence
Those lonely hours with no friend in sight
My only companions are myself and I
I am many yet all in one

I am a soul, mind and body
I lose who I am at times with the chaos of life
It is only in the late hours of the night
Where there is no sound but the beating of my heart
And the swelling of my lungs as air is taken in and out
It is only then three thirds of me transpire

The spiritual

The spiritual lays within me; he connects me to a higher being; God
He takes third of my being; he can take over at times of grace
Through him I realize my berth in this massive universe
A sand grain amongst endless dunes of Sahara desserts
An atom amongst infinite stars and galaxies
A thread of silk in the midst of endless silk cocoons
Through him I learned humility and love
He bonds me to an infinite greater truth
A truth that cannot be seen but is felt
Years of dormant senses are awakened to believe
To a higher level of consciousness I achieve
As the other two in me lay down in sweet sleep

The mind

He is my second third
The mind is a marvelous part of me
He is a maze I go astray in many times
He keeps me on my toes with his wonderful crazy thoughts
Through him I can knit a quilt of endless sleepless dreams
In contemplation I can touch my dreams
If he is given more than third of me
He would not hesitate to conquer me
He is a pillar in mankind’s survival
He is the tool through him we learned and developed
He has taken us to the moon and beyond
To the atom and the cell
Through him we heal, fly and light up the darkness of our skies
Through him we were able to plot, kill and destroy
Yes the mind was able to conquer all
Only when he was given permission to take over all of our beings
Never forget he is only third, never to conquer all

The body

Oh the body the vehicle of all..
She is the third of all three but never the least
Through her all thoughts and feelings from mind and spirit are conveyed
She deciphers all signals to a language one can apprehend
A smile from her can brighten one’s day
A touch from her can stop the throbbing pain
She transports love from a look of an eye to an embrace
Through her she senses beauty all around
And aches with throbbing tearing pain
For she is powerful and ever so beautiful
Endless portrayals of her marvel have been seen
Throughout history, countless artists and poets have described
For the body they became intoxicated and bewildered
For her beauty many have lost their lives
For her strengths many were greedy for more
She has conquered all and will go on doing so many times
Time is always her worst enemy when she conquers all
For time will teach her what true worth is
She is my tool to express love, beauty and pain
But she is never all

All of my thirds never cease to grow
The spiritual can never be close enough
For he seeks humility and love throughout his being

The awakened mind is always hungry for more
He befriends wisdom as he matures and grows

The body, my daily tool
She starts off as weakness and grows into strength
She ends in weakness as a reminder of what she truly is

These are my thirds that lay within
These are the mains of what my life’s aims
Each one stays in his and her designated space
One might take charge in times of need
But the rest are prepared for their times indeed
The spiritual, mind and body
I find myself in three..

Having created the universe, how would you go about confirming that your creation is indeed good? It’s not like you have your mother telling you how great you are. You are God. You are all-powerful. You created something out of nothing. And yet, it is precisely because of your greatness, that you find yourself somewhat alone. In a very real sense, there is no one out there quite like you.

And so, in an effort to confirm the efficacy of your good works, you create life, as a reflection of the life that you’ve breathed into the universe as a whole. And in particular, you create man and woman, in your image no less, so that they could apprehend the nature of your existence, and the wonder of the work that you have wrought. And since you are a creator, and since man and woman are created in your image, then they too are given the power to create the world as they see fit.

And so, having put in place the various pieces of the puzzle, you watch for any signs which show that your creation is indeed good. You were like an artist on a rampage when you created the universe. Just look at the pictures sent back from Hubble. But like any artist, you want your work to mean something, and so, the search for meaning is at the heart of your intent in bringing into existence the whole of creation. And yet, how will the possibility of meaning make itself known?

In your search for meaning, you created man and woman, in your image, so that like you, they could create as well. But you didn’t make it easy on them, did you? In fact, you couldn’t. Your inclination was to believe that meaning could only emerge from the struggle between good and evil. And so, in a way, you stacked the deck against human beings, because you wanted to see how they would do in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. If they could succeed against the odds, then it would be an affirmation to you that your creation was indeed good. That it meant something.

And in recent days, as if to bring history to a head, so to speak, you’ve allowed the pressure to increase, so as to allow man’s destiny to play itself out, once and for all. And so, you watch as global economies begin to tumble. You sigh as the environment is laid to waste. And you probably laugh as the extremists of the world take their ideological positions so seriously. But you are not detached from your creation. You still have a stake in the game. Your sense of self-worth is on the line after all. If man is somehow able to pick up the broken pieces, and to recast himself as “new and improved,” then it will be an affirmation to you that your creation is indeed good, and that as between good and evil, good has the upper hand. At such time, your belief in the possibility of meaning will have been vindicated.

And so, having a legitimate stake in the game, you continue to make your presence known. With little hints along the way, and with puzzling coincidences that are ever more purposeful then they seem at first, you point to the right path for us to follow. As a loving mother nudging her baby to take her first steps, you push us onward, in so many ways, to do what is right, and what is necessary, even as we trip and fall at every turn. You do this because at the end of the day you want to believe that it was not all for naught, and that there is an underlying meaning to the whole of creation, a meaning that is sometimes buried somewhere, but is still waiting to get out.

Many of us lowly humans around the world find our nations’ fabric somewhat tattered and frayed at the edges. Out economies are falling apart. Our environment has been trashed. And the forces of extremism are busy hatching plans for our collective future. It is time to pick up the pieces, and to weave them together in a new pattern, one that is more reminiscent of our founding principles and highest ideals. It is time to help God out to realize the potential for meaning, the meaning that was part of the design, but that has yet to come to fruition. Will we find the courage and the wisdom to use the dire circumstances of our time to remake ourselves in a new light, a light that will shine as a beacon of hope, for all to see, and for all to follow? What do you think?

As I walk in the journey of life

I come across God’s wondrous beings

At times I would rest for a while

Only to enjoy the beauty of beings

I would contemplate the blessings I have

And whisper grace to God for all his givings..

I learned many things from only seeing..

I learned that to tear a flower from her intimate haven

Only allows me to enjoy her momentarily..

For her place is among the endless fields

Where I can observe her true beauty as the wind touches her body

She dances a harmonized coordinated dance with all other blossoms

I can only observe in silenced awe at the creator’s reverence

I carry on in the journey ahead and bid farewell to the dancing blossoms

For I know I shall brush against God’s allure again in his wondrous livings

Paths cross in the journey of life

And that is the essence of being

But never forget we always must part

And that is the anguish of being human

We draw in the core of beings who joined us in our path

Their true essence never cease.. for we capture them in our spirits

Never forget these are the foundations of living

For you are the only pilgrim walking in your path

Enjoy the entwining of paths while it lasts

For if you don’t enjoy the moment

You will wish you had when there is no turning back

With no regrets look ahead and be aware of paths that cross

For there is always beauty in God’s beings

It’s a little thought experiment I’d like to share with you all, and is basically a video of me talking, because I don’t want to write a long blog post that’s going to blind you to death.

The answers you come up with during this thought experiment are precisely the kind that have huge political consequences daily on the rights Mideast Youth fights for, and the freedoms we’re trying to advocate.

So, watch the video, and let me know in the comments section below…

… who would you trust more, Mr. X or Mr. Y?

What had previously been considered a more developed district has been overtaken by the Taliban over the last 18 months. Approximately 184 schools were destroyed by the Taliban, 120 of which had been girls’ schools. Women who had come to know progressive reform were now threatened with death for shopping alone.

Swat used to be called the “Switzerland of the East” but is now referred to by the people as “the land of the terrorists.” The economy has collapsed, and parents don’t feel safe sending their children to school. The Taliban have targeted politicians, police, and reporters with a hit list, and 47 local politicians, leaders and activists have been ordered to appear before the Taliban court, or else. Dozens have already been killed. The local police have been systematically wiped out, their numbers shrinking from 1700 police officers down to 300.

There is widespread belief in Swat that the Pakistani military has struck a deal with the militants, and is therefore not going out of its way to defeat them. However, military officers point to the difficulty of fighting militants who position themselves among civilians. Some question the military’s commitment in the face of the ferocity of the Taliban’s fight. Yusufzai, the Peshawar editor of The News International says that “…these militants are willing to die while the soldiers are trying to save their lives.” Political activists accuse the military of supporting camps in tribal areas where militants receive training. The Awami National Party’s Gohar says that in her opinion, “If we want peace and prosperity in Pakistan, we cannot go around killing people in other countries, or sending in extremists and militants from our soil.”

Why is any of this important to the rest of us? We don’t live in Swat Valley, do we?

In the wake of 9/11, U.S. foreign policy has focused on regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq. All sorts of justifications have been offered for these policies, some of which have been proven to be false. But in the meantime, these two brutal wars continue to rage on, with no clear outcome in sight. And the conflict between Israel and Palestinians continues unabated as well. The recent military campaign in Gaza is just another case in a long string of military volleys back and forth.

America and Israel have faced an onslaught of international criticism as a result of their military activities, and the suffering such activity brings upon innocent civilians. And it is fitting that a world which calls itself civilized, should be repulsed by violence, and should be able to speak out against the brutality of military action, and in favor of justice for the innocent. After all, what does it mean to be civilized if it is not justice we seek? All this is true. And it is true as well that both America and Israel, who do share a strong connection based on common values, similar circumstances, and mutual interest, have gone overboard at times, with regard to excessive violence, and have wavered with regard to strategy, and with regard to their ultimate goals. In a very real sense, I doubt whether either Israel or the U.S. has a clear picture of what their ultimate goals really are.

But in the midst of all this uncertainty, one thing is pretty certain; the ideological extremists do indeed know what they want, and are emboldened by ideological conviction to get it. It is easy to get so wrapped up in criticizing the U.S. and Israel, that we lose sight of that. And yet, much as we hesitate to admit it, confronting the extremists is absolutely necessary, if we don’t want our countries to delve into the hell that is Swat Valley.

Context is important. For example, stealing is wrong. That’s true. But a mother stealing bread to feed her starving children is less wrong. Isn’t it? Killing civilians is wrong. That’s true. But killing civilians unintentionally in defense of one’s freedom is less wrong. Isn’t it? There are certain questions which have to be answered, and certain decisions which have to be made, even if they bring into question the very moral fiber of our being. Is there a threat to Western civilization posed by ideological extremists? Is this a threat we choose to confront? Do we use the means to confront this threat, even if it means that innocent people will be killed in the process?

These are hard questions, and the answers will be even harder for many of us to stomach. It goes against the grain of who we are. Many of us are idealistic, caring people, and it is exceedingly difficult for us to accept the profound nature of the evil we face, and the injustice that will be necessary to defeat it. And yet, the evil still stands lurking in the shadows. It will not go away quietly into that good night. It will remain and grow until we find the courage and the wisdom to confront it head on, with the same tenacity that emboldens the extremism we face.

I, for one, happen to believe that there is a great deal we could do, short of violence, to weaken the hold of extremist thinking. I believe in speaking to the man on the street with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. I believe in investing in him; in giving him a place at the table, a stake in his future, by creating good paying jobs: jobs which grow the economy, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to neutralize an ideology of hate. I believe in inspiring him with a Vision of Hope. I believe in sustaining the hope with public diplomacy.

All that is fine and good, but it will not be enough in and of itself. We will have no choice but to fight. Unfortunately, this is the sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves. We will have to fight because the enemy will not be moved otherwise. And therefore, since we have to fight, and fight hard, we owe it to ourselves to position the fight within a Vision of Hope; to raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. People will fight harder once they know what they’re fighting for. We are not fighting a “war against terror.” We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There’s a big difference.

It is precisely because we have to fight, that we also have to invest. Our willingness to invest in the man on the street will give us, and people who choose to partner with us, including moderate Muslims, a good measure of credibility, and will embolden us to sustain the fight until the fight is won. The alternative is Swat Valley, an alternative that most of us cannot even afford to consider.

For more information, please visit our website www.sellingavisionofhope.org

I

With that said, I have never understood Hamas response to Israel: continued violence. Even if you think it’s justified, what good does it do? From what I gather, it only acts as a front for Israel’s continued and disproportionate aggression.

Imagine you wake up tomorrow and turn on Al-Gazira, CNN, LBC, Fox News, whatever you watch, and you see 200,000 Gazans sitting in Gaza City. They’re not doing anything but sitting. The Israeli soldiers come up and look confused. Perhaps they start shooting, perhaps they don’t. Instead of fighting back, Palestinians sitting there accept that they may face death, but agree to not return fire with fire.

Some die. They become martyrs. Some live. They become witnesses. The world recognizes the situation for what it is – outright aggression by an occupying power.

Even when Palestinians use violence to resist, they suffer, die, and are buried. When has the violence ever worked? Israel is one of the most powerful military powers in the world. What will Hamas ever be able to accomplish against such a powerful country with international cover from the U.S.? I keep believing that non-violent resistance is really the only option, the only thing that could ever work. But is it possible?

Even some of my most progressive Palestinian friends think it’s impossible. Most just say Israel will get away with more violence. My response: Israel will always get away with violence under the current conditions. Palestinians have to fundamentally change the parameters under which the conflict is perceived. Death in the face of a non-violent resistance receives far more sympathy than the death of militants. That is why the death of women and children is so horrific. Eventually, the world (i.e., the United States) will realize how oppressive the Israeli occupation is. As Israel loses its credibility, the chances for the U.S. to act as an impartial player increase, also increasing the chances for a just peace, something all sides can accept.

Nonviolent resistance is not a foreign concept to Palestine. However, it doesn’t seem to take hold at the grassroots level. I think Fateh is associated with the non-violent approach, but such a resistance needs to be a movement, not a position of the government. Sure that helps, but it won’t create the change needed.

Can this happen? How? Ideas?

But is it possible that the right to defend oneself is being stretched so thin, that it crosses over into the realm of terrorism? And if that is the case, how do we know where the right to self-defense ends, and terror begins?

An example may help. As World War II was drawing to a close, the U.S. fought hard to defeat Japan. There were estimates at the time that victory in Japan, using conventional warfare, would cost millions of lives. President Truman made the painful and momentous decision to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And indeed, that decision prompted a quick surrender on the part of Japan. But could it be argued that the decision to drop the bomb was an act of terror, and not simply self-defense?

What is “terrorism?” The best definition that I’ve come across is: The intentional use of violence or fear against civilians for the purpose of promoting a political agenda. So there are two criteria for terrorism: the targeting of civilians, and a purpose to promote a political agenda. With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, civilians were clearly targeted. But was the purpose strictly political, or did it contain enough of an element of the right to defend oneself, such that it could be seen as an act of self-defense? Clearly Japan was out to kill as many Americans as she could. And clearly, dropping the bomb saved lives by bringing the war to a quick close. But did the bomb cross the line into the realm of terror?

For the claim of self-defense to be legitimate, there needs to be a close and immediate connection between the defensive action taken, and the threat that is perceived by the person defending himself. If that connection is too loose, or tenuous, or indirect, then what is claimed in the name of self-defense, may quickly devolve into the realm of terror. And the distinction between self-defense and terror is an important one because political and military actions are being planned and taken, as we speak, based on this distinction.

If Israel and the U.S. decide to take preemptory action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, is this self-defense or terror? Clearly, innocent civilians will be put at risk. But is the threat posed by a nuclear Iran strong enough to justify an act of “self-defense?” What do you think?

Barack Obama has expressed his view that if we get actionable intelligence as to Bin Laden’s whereabouts, that he would take preemptive military action, even if the target was is Pakistan. Would this be self-defense or terror? Suppose that innocent civilians would be put at risk? Would this change the nature of the military action? What is America’s aim here; to defend herself, or to send a message to her enemies? Does motivation change the nature of the action taken?

A few years ago, scores of innocent children were killed in a face-off in Beslan. A group of militants from Chechnya took over the school, and put the lives of hundred of children at risk. Could anything that was happening in Chechnya have justified this action, so as to make it an act of self-defense? Or are some actions beyond the pale of any sort of moral justification? Would Jews on their way to the death camps have been morally entitled to kill innocent children? Or are such actions beyond the pale of human decency, under any circumstances?

My sense is that each case has to be evaluated on its own merits. It is often the case that the line between self-defense and terror is a thin and fuzzy line at best. It is convenient to ascribe to various groups the labels which make it easier for us to evaluate their behavior. We take a certain comfort, for example, in calling this or that group a “terrorist organization.” Such a designation makes it easier for to decide what to do. But the moral subtleties which underlie any given situation often undercut the notion that human behavior can be made to fit into nice and neat labels. We often have no choice but to evaluate each and every case on its own merits, even if it means questioning our preconceived notions.

I’m not a girl, nor a relationship expert. But I know the different chemistry of affections in two genders of male and female. These are different. Women can’t fall in love instantly and become insane by just seeing a male! It’s not important how beautiful he may be, but that’s not the way a woman falls in love. Maybe she likes his beauty and confirms it in an instant observation, but cant becomes spelled and so much fascinated, falling in love.

This love (by observation) just exists in male gender. We all know many stories about men who are fascinated in a woman instantly by observation and they crash the car, bang to the wall, fall in canal and can’t help themselves. If you’re a male, there’s no usage for more explanation. For example listen to James Blunt great song ‘You’re Beautiful’, which describes a particular falling in love situation: seeing a beautiful woman in street with his man passing by and falling in love with her!

It’s hard to believe for a woman to conceive that many women in this story have fallen in love in this manner (if you’re a man, you can’t understand it, so don’t dispute). These attractions work just for men whom are evolutionary, physiologically and psychologically different.
Then one may conclude this story (Joseph and Zulaikha) has been written by a male or who hasn’t been aware of female psychology! What do you think?

Is it just my imagination, or do people in the Middle East get pissed off easily? Do you think that some of them, at least, get up in the morning wondering where the next insult will come from? And once they lose their cool, they don’t easily forget so easily, do they? And it’s not a religious thing, either. Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the Middle East all seem to be afflicted with the same malady. Maybe it’s a tribal thing? Who knows?

I remember getting married some thirty-three years ago. We were married on the Champs Elysees in Paris, my wife having grown up there. We invited family from all over the world, and a lot of them actually showed up. But of special concern to us were my two uncles, on my father’s side, who hadn’t spoken to one another for some twenty-five years. How would they get along at the wedding, we wondered. Would they even come?

Well, both ended up coming, and we assigned them to be the two witnesses to sign the Ketubbah, which is the marriage contract in the Jewish tradition. God forbid you give one an honor, and not the other. But would they speak to one another after all those years of silence?

My fiancé and I came up with a strategy. We would spend a day with each one separately, showing each some of the sights of gay Paris. We asked one, “Tell me uncle, what was the fight with your brother all about?” He didn’t seem to remember. We asked the other. Same response. Hmm. Twenty-five years of not talking to one another, and no one remembers why? Interesting.

The day of the wedding, believe it or not, everything went well. The two brothers signed the Ketubba, and that seemed to break the ice. They chatted away, and stayed close ever since, until they passed on.

I’ve often wondered about the psyche of the Middle East. Could it be that people there are particularly sensitive, and prone to bear a grudge? And what are the implications for peace if this is so?

If I had to guess, I would say that there is a strain of ultra-sensitivity in the Middle East. Obviously, not in everyone, but the tendency is still there as part of the regional culture. Many Middle Easterners are very proud of their cultural and religious heritage. But the flip side of pride is extreme sensitivity, and a tendency to hold a grudge.

Do you have a father, or a family member, that has to be spoken to in just the right way? And if you miscalculate your wording, do you begin to feel the heat just as the words slip off you tongue? And do you sense that your faux pas will not soon be forgotten?

Why is any of this important? A sense of honor is important, but a craving for honor could easily bring dishonor. Honor killing is an extreme example. Honor killing brings dishonor to the family, even as the family strives to protect its honor. A sense of pride is important, but too much pride can shut one off from criticism, and can induce long term hatreds due to perceived insults. And like an elephant, one never seems to be able to forget, or to move on.

The business of peace in the Middle East will not be clean or comfortable. People abused by the scars of history will hurl insults at one another, to give expression to their collective sense of grief and injustice. How we react in light of those emotions will make all the difference in the world as to our success in brokering a peace.

It is natural for people to be emotional. And emotions run particularly high in the Middle East, and for good reason. But it may be time to cool the emotions, even if only a tad. It may be time to go about the business of peace with a cool, calculating, collected mind, one bent on strength of purpose, instead of emotional relief.

We may well have to swallow our pride, to create a reality that we can really be proud of. If that means shelving our emotions for a while, so be it. If that means bringing some flexibility to our sense of honor, well that’s how it goes. If that means giving up a piece of ourselves in the process, c’est la vie. We will have to be big enough and wise enough to admit that it’s not just about us, but about those who will come after us. We will have to step out of who we are, to become something more than we ever were, or could ever imagine.

Soldier: I can’t believe you guys; strapping on suicide bombs and blowing up innocent civilians. Have you no shame, no sense of decency?

Terrorist: I can’t believe you guys; strapping on your seatbelts and firing missiles at this or that target, when you know full well that innocent people will be killed. Have you no shame, no sense of decency?

Soldier: There’s a big difference here. We do not intend to kill innocent civilians. You do. The innocent people we kill are collateral damage.

Terrorist: “Collateral damage?” Isn’t that a fancy cover-up for doing exactly what we do? We intend to kill innocent civilians. You don’t intend it, but know full well that innocent civilians will die in your operation. So what’s the big difference here? Pretending you don’t intend something that you know will happen anyway?

Soldier: Look, we’re wearing uniforms. We’re properly equipped. We comply with military conventions. And we do what it takes to defend our country.

Terrorist: Well, we don’t wear uniforms, because we’d rather not get shot before carrying out our missions. We are not properly equipped because we don’t have the means. We defy military conventions because we don’t have much of a military. And we fight, using what we have, on behalf of a cause we deeply believe in. We make do with what we have. Once again, all I see is moral equivalency between you and us.

Soldier: You’re so full of it. All you can do is to hide in the shadows, like a rat, spreading fear wherever you go, and using violence to force people to your way of thinking.

Terrorist: And when you fire your missiles, and your bombs, and your guns, aren’t you also placing fear in the hearts of people, and forcing them to swallow your policies against their will? What’s the big difference here?

Soldier: Yes, but you’re so loony, you believe that killing innocent people will make you a martyr, and will get you into heaven, surrounded by 72 virgins no less. How stupid is that?

Terrorist: And when you kill and die, your people will celebrate you as a military hero, even if innocent civilians died in the process. How stupid is that?

Soldier: I fight for my country because I believe in what she stands for.

Terrorist: Do you believe that your country makes mistakes, mistakes which cost innocent lives?

Soldier: Well, everyone makes mistakes.

Terrorist: So you will fight and kill for your country even if you know she makes mistakes?

Soldier: I will defend my country no matter what.

Terrorist: So I fight for the cause I believe in, no matter what, even if I’m not always right in what I believe, and even if I have to do some unsightly things, like killing civilians.

Soldier: But your cause sucks. At least I’m fighting for something noble, like freedom and democracy, and on behalf of a nation that upholds the rule of law.

Terrorist: I don’t see any freedom and democracy in the places you occupy. And where is the rule of law when you so easily suspend the rule of law, when you have to fight people like me.

Soldier: At least I know what I’m fighting for. What the hell are you fighting for?

Terrorist: I fight for God’s law, and His law is the real “rule of law.” His authority exceeds the authority of your secular nation. And I place my life in His hands, and in His service.

Soldier: So you don’t see much difference in the tactics we use?

Terrorist: Not really. We basically go around doing the same things. We just justify ourselves in different ways.

Soldier: And as to motivation; I’m fighting for my country, and you’re fighting for God.

Terrorist: Well, I don’t have a country as yet, since you stole it, so I fight for God instead.

Soldier: So there’s no big difference between terrorism and military action? Is that it?

Terrorist: No difference that amount to any real moral significance.

Soldier: Well then, I guess we’ll have to let the people decide.

Terrorist: The people? What do you mean?

Soldier: We have our agenda, and you have yours. It will be up to the people on the street to decide what they prefer?

Terrorist: We are at one with the people. We represent the people. There is not even one ray of sunshine between us and the people.

Soldier: That’s funny. But when some of your people dare to voice their disagreement with you, you usually end up killing them as well.

Terrorist: People who turn against us, are with the enemy, and deserve to be treated like the enemy.

Soldier: Well then, maybe there is a difference between us after all. Citizens, who disagree with what we do, or with the government we defend, have a right to disagree, and have a right to vote the government out, and there’s nothing much we can do about it. So maybe it will be up to the people to decide. If they don’t like our government’s policies, they will vote it out of office. But if they don’t like you, they may very well find another way to put you out of commission.

Terrorist: We are ready to die for our cause. We will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by you, or by anyone else, for that matter, even the people on the street.

Soldier: Well maybe there’s nothing much we can do about you, though we’ll keep on trying. But I can assure you, my friend: if you or I begin to walk out of step with the will of the people, they will make their will known to us, and there will be nothing that either one of us could do to stop that. The will of the people will not be deterred. It will be up to them to decide our fate. It will be up to them, once and for all, to decide what they want for themselves, for their children, and for the countless generations of children yet to come.

Peace is often understood as the absence of war between two or more state-organized armies. Nonetheless, the concept of peace also applies to the state of people within their respective geopolitical entities, as civil war, state-sponsored genocide, terrorism, and other violence are all threats to peace on an international level.

Terrorism has become the major threat of peace, as it try to evolve to become civil wars, and international conflicts, terrorism try to take the mask of religion converting conflict of space, power to holly concept, to prepare soldiers that will die for the greater aim, looking for victory can not be achieve as violence is the opposite of human need for real connection with higher powers to achieve inner peace.

There is a wide spectrum of views about whether, or when, violence and war are necessary or justifiable. Mahatma Gandhi’s conception of peace was not as an end, but as a means: “There is no way to peace; peace is the way.” It is a method required in these days the support of political systems ,international organizations, in order to build the culture of nonviolent ,and conflict resolution ,in the same time we must apply rules to force those who hide behind terror and believe in force as method of forcing there visions, we need to protect our peace in order to be able to use peace as the way.

From our experience in Iraq we found that death and terror know no religion and feed on the blood of civilians who are left in the middle of battle for there fats, the only solution is peace and conflict resolution as the required method to start to live together and build our country, but if we look only to peace in Iraq neglecting the need for peaceful neighborhood in the area, that mean we will never be able solve our problems as the instability in the area contribute to our instability, we need to site and start to face our fears, that we need to coordinated and cooperate with every power looking to establish peaceful environment for all the area and the world.

Christian extremists threaten violent attacks over depiction of Jesus.

Jesus orgy artwork sparks furor in Austria

VIENNA, Austria (AP) — Austrians are locked in a nationwide debate touched off by the brief display in a prestigious Roman Catholic museum of an etching that depicts Jesus Christ and his disciples having an orgy during the biblical Last Supper.

Alfred Hrdlicka’s etching of an orgy at the Last Supper has provoked strong criticism in Austria

A chastened and chagrined Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, the top churchman in this largely conservative and overwhelmingly Catholic country, has ordered the offending artwork, by sculptor Alfred Hrdlicka, removed.

But the controversy rages on, and some have likened it to the furor triggered by the Prophet Muhammad cartoons.

Exhibition curator Michael Kaufmann says he’s even seen Web postings from extremists “who have threatened to come to Vienna and blow up its museums with Molotov cocktails.”

Source
thanx to 7ijazi $P3ctaT0r for alerting me to this

A what? A “deist.” Well, “them’s fighting words,” as far as I was concerned, but before reaching for the boxing gloves, I thought I’d better look up what the word “deist” means. It can’t hurt to understand the insult, before getting insulted.

Deism is the belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation and supernatural events such as prophesy and miracles. Um… Believing in God on the basis of reason, as opposed to prophesy, miracles, holy books, and the like.

Well, maybe Edwin is on to something. I do believe that we can ascertain the existence of God through reason. It goes something like this: Some 13.7 billion years ago there was a great explosion, appropriately called The Big Bang. Right before this calamitous event there was nothing; not even time and space. Right after, there was everything; the entire universe in all its glory.

Whatever caused that explosion to occur is indeed worthy of being called God, if the word God is to mean anything. Therefore, God is the Prime Mover, who caused the universe to come into being. To do that, He needed to use an infinite amount of all sorts of energy: heat, electricity, radiation, and even the energy of intelligence. Therefore, God, who is the Creator of all things, can be thought of as the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe. His energy flows through us, and our energy flows through Him.

It’s just a thought. I’m not about to jump on a horse and kill you over it. But it’s simply a way of trying to make sense of the mystery that is God. Does it help us to think of God as an infinite ocean of energy? Does it make sense to universalize the notion of God by using reason to ascertain His existence and His essence?

I say yes. I am not against religion. I believe that religion, properly understood, could be a legitimate pathway to God. But here’s the problem. When we rely solely on our holy books, and the prophesies and miracles that are recounted there, we divide ourselves from one another. “My holy book says this and that, and you better believe it, or else.”

And since we’re talking about something as important as God no less, the divisions we create between us can run very deep indeed. And since a belief in God can move us to extreme emotion, and to absolute conviction, we can feel entitled, somehow, to take liberty with the lives of others, in defense of our deeply held beliefs.

However, coming to God through our power of reason, is different than coming to Him from our holy books. Reason, by its very nature, is less divisive. Two plus two equals four; here and in China as well. There is not much room for argument here. Reason underpins the universal notions of Common Sense. Common Sense is “common,” because it is universal. Common Sense makes “sense,” because it is logical, rational, and self-evident. Common Sense unites. Religion can often divide.

So if there were a way to come to God through the power of intellect, as guided by reason, and in conformance with universal notions of Common Sense; would this not be a less divided world? Could religious strife be neutralized to a much greater extent? Could there emerge a consensus with regard to a belief in God, which would then help people find common ground with respect to the more mundane matters of life, matters which beg for our attention even as we speak?

So Edwin, at a time when Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists are at each other’s throats, over words written long ago, and about beliefs which may no longer be palatable to the modern mind; at such time, I don’t mind being called a “deist,” especially if accepting that label could hint at the possibility of peace. It may well be time, before time runs out, to find new sources of inspiration for our beliefs, and new pathways to God, even as we continue to embrace our religions. Using reason, and the common sense notions born of it, is a good bet, because whatever else He said or did, God certainly created a world that is capable of being understood, and being made sense of.

As we look behind at the history we see always there have been honest and righteous people among every cultures and religions and at the same time vicious ones among them. For example, there have been many virtuous Christians in Middle Ages when many were vicious and tortured human beings in that era. And also today we see that there are many nice Christians among our societies. So one may ask if Jesus teachings were vicious in Middle Ages but is not now.

When you walk in Muslim societies you always face some nice people with all respect, respecting each other and also respecting you as the stranger. Sometimes you find them very nice to you that you’ve never seen that before. And also if you look at history you’ll find Muslim societies to be great, rich and well armed with knowledge in Middle East and North Africa when Christianity was torturing the Christian world in Middle Ages.
But these days when you turn your TV on, you can watch arresting Muslims for some terrors here and there! Another question is also what happened to Mohammad’s teachings? Was it great in the Middle Ages and suddenly turned to something vicious in 21st century?

I can go for many ideologies now with this simple argument. But I stop here to go through deeper.

There are criminals always among us and it’s a truth that we can’t ignore. Every criminal has his reasons why he does such a thing. It is not our aim here to go through why criminals appear in societies. But there are always injustices behind these criminals.

Bad situations make those criminals and we can find them in every society with any ideology and religion. Jews have criminals among them, Hindus have, Muslims have, Christians have, Bahai’s have and etc.

First Conclusion: As evolving the criminals is due to social and ethical topics; then we can’t conclude these manners to be religious! The influence of our ideology is not what makes us criminals or nice guys!

My first conclusion may seem to be a little strange, so I explain it more:
By referring to common sense between human beings and what we know as universal ethics (what is good for all of us and what is bad), ethics is beyond religion; because I assume here the ethics to be universal but not the religion! (There are many religions between human societies but not many ethics.)
And because vicious and virtuous always had been in human societies and it doesn’t depend on which religion they had practiced, then it is an ethical issue and is not related to religion. We know many religious one that their wickedness has also misused religion as an instrument to reaching his wicked goals. And also that religion has been an instrument to a virtuous one to bring goodness out.

Second Conclusion: We cannot attribute a criminal will to religion that he bears its name with. And also there are nice guys among them that we don’t mention as the symbol of that religion. The influence of our ideology is not what makes us criminals or nice guys! That’s the influence of our social and political situations. Then let’s draw a borderline between ethics and religions!

Then with this approach there would be no place to make conclusion as Is hating Islam the same thing as hating Muslims? that one may declare. We shouldn’t attribute terrorism to Islam or Muslims, to Christianity or Christians, to Jewish and Jews, to Bahaism or Bahai and etc. Terror will evolve in any hard situation and is product of social and political problems that with the name of religion takes place! Then let’s draw a borderline between ethics and religions!

Frankly, I choose to believe that paradise does not exist, for two reasons: one, because paradise makes no sense to me, and two, because a belief in paradise may do more harm than good.

Why does paradise make no sense? Every version of paradise that I can think of quickly devolves into the realm of absurdity. Let’s consider the possibilities:

Reuniting with loved ones in heaven: Suppose, when we die, we reunite with our loved ones in heaven. Presumably we would have quite an extended family waiting for us up there, considering all the generation which have passed on. Now, consider just one question: Did you ever spend an extended period of time with your extended family? And if so, did you consider that experience to be a “heavenly” experience. I rest my case.

The Garden of Eden version of heaven: Suppose we imagine an enchanted paradise where all our needs are met, and where happiness reigns supreme for all eternity. Can you imagine such a place? Some of us picture 72 virgins attending to our every whim and fancy. Don’t get me started. The cost of headscarves along would break the bank. But I, for one, picture the Caribbean Islands: turquoise waters, sunny blue skies, palm trees swaying in the wind, luscious frozen drinks, a delicious international buffet, and a courteous hotel staff waiting on me hand and foot. Sounds heavenly, doesn’t it? But consider the time factor…eternity. How am I supposed to drag this vacation scene out for eternity? How many mystery thrillers can I read already? And who will write them up there in heaven; some saintly best-selling author? Doesn’t quite work, does it.

The heaven where the soul reunites with God: Suppose I die, and my soul drifts upward and reunites with my Creator. At this point, my soul has no body with which to function, no brain with which to think, and no memory with which to remember. In short, no nothing; no resemblance to human life. Therefore, the soul, whatever it is, is not me, and therefore it is not me up there in heaven, but rather a disembodied spiritual essence of me which I can’t really relate to, try as I might.

So, paradise makes no sense to me, but why is a belief in paradise so harmful? Because a belief in paradise or heaven defers to the afterlife what needs to be done right here and right now. The justice we await in heaven should be the justice that is meted out here on earth. Believing in heaven can inhibit us from doing what we need to, today, to make this world a better place, and to make our lives here more purposeful and sustainable. And for all those fervent potential martyrs and suicide bombers out there; do you really want to gamble with the here and now, on the possibly false hope for things to come?

The truth is that heaven and hell are with us right here, and right now. We have it within our power, and in our own hands, to make this life a paradise on earth, or to render the possibility of paradise null and void by making our lives here a living hell. We have the potential for paradise right here and right now. All the necessary ingredients are already in place. But it is up to us to realize that potential, as is the case with all aspects of human potential. Which way do we go as a species?

Suppose I’m wrong. It could happen. I say we cease to exist when we die, like we were before we were born. That’s not so scary, is it? You don’t really worry about how it was for you before you were born, unless you’re deeply in need of therapy. But suppose paradise does in fact exist. Wouldn’t it make more sense to say:

“Well, since I don’t know for sure, I choose to believe that my life here on earth may be all there is, and I will therefore make the most of my life, because my life, right here and right now, may well be all that I may ever have?” That way, if heaven does exist, it will be like the icing on the cake, to be enjoyed after living a full and happy life. If, however, heaven doesn’t exist, then we will still have enjoyed a full and happy life.

You see how common sense works? It covers you coming and going. Any way you turn, it’s right there, ready to guide your way along the path of life, like a moral compass you carry within you. It’s that special gift, the gift that comes packaged in a box, the box of core truths and universal values.

Here we come to another conclusion that blaming and preaching are like a two-sided coin! If I’m a preacher of my ideology, I am trying to make my viewpoint and ideology dominant and tell other’s are not valuable enough to believe in! Then I am blaming others indirectly!
If someone doesn’t want to change his mind and is a great adherent to his ideology; then I am a stupid and wasting my life. My achievement is no more than upsetting my rival and blaming!

Some people have tendencies to stick to their first ideology that they’ve got in life; some have tendencies to go through every ideology to pick a better one or better ones!

Conclusion: Since our ideologies are personal, then positive and negative (preaching and blaming) approaches are the same and not only is useless to change a mind, but also would make the rivals annoy!

p.s. You may ask, then how should we guide communities to a better ideology or ethics! Check the upcoming part!

How is it that people come to believe in such things? And the Muslim world is not the only place where such thinking abounds. You could be riding a subway or a bus in a modern American city, and you make the mistake of looking at a young man in the wrong way. He pulls out a gun and shoots you in the head for “disrespecting” him, simply by looking at him in a way that, in his mind, demeaned his sense of “honor.”

A lot of times you see this kind of thinking among the poor and among the uneducated, but not always. If you are poor and uneducated, and if the weight of a hard life weighs heavily down upon you, then you man find yourself grasping at straws trying to reclaim a sense of honor and a sense of dignity. When you have nothing in your life that gives you dignity, or respect, you may end up looking for it in the strangest places: by stoning your daughter, or by shooting a fellow traveler for looking at you the wrong way.

What can I say? We have come to believe in a lot of stupid things. Why? Because many of us have no other reference point, and because sometimes it’s just easier to accept what we are told is right, instead of thinking it out for ourselves. But if we think things out before acting out, we may think twice about acting out in the wrong way, and against our own best interest.

Common sense would suggest that there is no honor in killing. Honor is not bestowed on us as a matter of right, but is earned by each of us with the good things we do for one another. We are not entitled to honor. We earn it as we go. Common sense would also suggest that we were put on this good earth to live; not to kill, and not to die, before our time.

But poverty and ignorance do play a part, as many of you rightly point out. They make it more possible for stupid thinking to grab hold. If a father, for example, has a decent job, and a decent education, and is able to provide adequately for his family, then chances are good that he will find his sense of honor in the good things he has, and does, without resorting to the perverse notion of “honor killing,” as a source of honor. If his daughter goes astray, he will find the strength, within himself, to set her straight with love and understanding, because his life gives him the self-respect he needs to respect others. But if that same father is left poor, and ignorant, he will find it difficult to respect others, even his own family, when he has no respect for himself.

People the world over will have to begin rethinking some of their deeply held beliefs, so that a semblance of order has a chance to emerge. We will need a new framework for rational thought based on universal notions of common sense—the collective wisdom borne of shared experience. We will also need to invest in one another, as many of you so rightly point out, so that the moderating influence of education and prosperity could begin to neutralize the influence of extremist thinking. Ideology plus Investment equals Hope, and with hope, all things are possible, even the kindness that we owe it to ourselves, to show one another.

Some days ago I read Esra’s article on bashing Islam and found it helpful to bring out my new viewpoint about religion related subjects!

As many societies tried to learn (but not middle eastern) that religion is some personal achievement of life that one should have his own. Some “live and let live” act! Here comes an example:

Finding a partner and a lover is something related to our tastes! When a man finds a woman fit for him to start a life in association, he may have some factors to pick his lady from bunch of women around. He may concentrate on some traits due to his life, his family ideology (what they appreciate), family and social influences, social and cultural situations and some many more factors; e.g. being nice, beautiful, aware, kind, coy, hot, sexy, having good mothering ability, rich, famous, family position … and every traits that brings out his love and is an arousal to go after her (You can find yours and add them to traits list)!
And that’s the same when a girl wants to find his partner. But she is not into a coy or shy guy Then she is going after some confident, strong, famous, rich, kind, sexy, hot and whatever that is an arousal for her. And when she wants marry him, she picks him beyond her premises: Social and cultural influences and limitations, family will and her way of goodness that she has learned in her life (definition of goodness for her).

Then he/she had his/her lady/man and will live his/her life with her/him happily for ever!

But some in the middle of way find out that he/she wasn’t the match. They leave each other and maybe try to find a better one that suits!

First Question: Should we blame each other because of how our partners are? If mine isn’t very nice, should you blame me and say, “hey dude, your chick is an ugly one, then you’re a stupid”? If your husband isn’t rich, should I blame you and say “when you’re husband is poor, then you are a stupid”?

Answer: As we all know, picking our partners depends on what we FEEL and FIND good for ourselves! It depends on what is tastier for us and it also depends on some factors about how our life has been, where we’ve been grown and what we have experienced in our life!

In the case of ideologies that’s the same story!
When you birth in a Jewish family that’s your first premise! When you loose your family and home in Iraq terrorism acts, that’s another big influential premise! When you live in Middle East, that’s another fate! When you are born in a Norwegian rich family, that will lead to another form of experience! Your father was Bahai and you’ve been born in Iran, that’s another experience!
Some may have some great and fine lives, then they are living different paradigm than those haven’t.

I don’t want to count more situations that effect on your ideological life; but they made you to become an adherent in a special ideology! That’s it!

But maybe in the middle of your life you find out that fits you not and you deserve a better one! What you do is to just pick a better one if you FEEL there is a better one! That’s it!

Second Question: Should we blame each other because of how our ideologies are? If mine is Islam, should you blame and bash me and say, “hey dude, your religion is supporter of terrorism (by referring to Jihad or some other fundamentals), then you’re a terrorist”? If you are an atheist, should I blame you? If you are a Christian should I say “why you are Christian when god revealed us the holy book Quran”?

Answer: Again it depends on the factors that have influenced our life and are influencing it right now. I’m adherent to my ideology because I found it useful! Or I changed because I found mine to be useless and found a better one; Just it!