2009 was a chaotic year. The Gaza war just ended on January 18, 2009 , leaving many people around the world in grief and concerned about the result: Around 1500 Palestinians murdered-many of them women and children- , more than 400′000 Gazans were left without running water, 4000 homes were distroyed or badly damaged and the siege which has not been ended up to now.

Around the time, Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th president of the US. The first black american who was entitled to the position.

Despite Obama’s promises of change, US and NATO troops remained in Afghanistan and Iraq and were also increased in number. Obama also got a noble prize which most believe it was for ‘nothing’!

Let’s not forget Iran’s nuclear disputes, the famous presidential election in Iran and pre-post election events which more or less still warm up the western media.

There was also the epidemic of H1N1 (wrongly named as swine flu),the Yemen war, the death of famous Micheal Jackson and the economic crisis.

Well, now that 2010 is coming (has come already), i’m not going to drag on explaining all the sadden events that took place in 2009.

2010 was proclaimed by the United Nations as The International Year of Biodiversity (IYB). Humans as a part of nature and its diversity have the power to protect it. However human activity is heavily causing so much damage to the life in a great part of nature. 2010 will actually be a year-long celebration of biological diversity and its value for life on Earth.

Now that 2009, the International year of astronomy ended already, i wish you all a very happy 2010. I wish for a much better year to live in. A year of prosperity, LoVe, Peace and justice all over the world. A year in which as to protecting the nature, we will also protect the human values all together.

Now that we watched the sky enough during 2009, let’s look after The Earth!

Six month ago I found an article in accordance with this subject, which title was “Adaptive attentional attunement: evidence for mating-related perceptual bias”. Evolution and Human Behavior 28 (2007) 28– 36.
The article assesses both sexes attention to both female and male subjects. Here is excerpt from article:

“Findings from the current study suggest that the attention of perceivers is captured at an early stage of visual processing by female physical attractiveness. Both male and female observers were relatively inefficient at disengaging their attention from attractive female targets. This bias emerged very quickly—within the first second of visual processing.”

“The current findings are consistent with the possibility that men and women have their attention captured by attractive women because such a bias could serve functions aimed at satisfying particular mating goals.”

“No attentional bias was observed for attractive male targets. The current findings are therefore consistent with evolutionary theories suggesting that physical attributes related to judgments of attractiveness play a relatively larger role in determining a woman’s value as a mate, compared with a man’s”

Consider the pharma and drug industries lovely work! from the 1950’s until the 1990’s, and these are just my favorite ones, just hand-picked from thousands of pages of facts from Articles of Health: Death by Vaccines.

Please read:

1) 1955- The Salk Polio Vaccine used in the U.S. for cases of polio sky rocket! It was reported that doctors on the staff of the National Institutes for Health are avoiding vaccination of their children with the Salk vaccine, and that after experimenting with 1200 monkeys , they declared the Salk vaccine worthless as a prevantative and a danger to take.

2) Early 1956- 17 states in the U.S. reject the government supplied Salk polio vaccine. BUT THEN, late 1956- US governments appropriates $53.6 million to ‘aid states in providing FREE VACCINE to people UNDER 20 YEARS OF AGE”– then eventually, at the end of that year, The American Public Health Service announces 168 cases of polio and 6 deaths among those vaccinated. Censorship is only THEN imposed on the reporting of the reactions to Salk vaccine.

3) 1957- the CIA plays McGill University Department of Psychiatry founder Dr. D. Ewen Cameron $69,000 to perform LSD studeis and potentially LETHAL experiments on Canadians being treated for minor disorders like post-partum depression and anxiety– this happened at the Allan Memorial Institute, which houses Psychiatry Department of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal. The CIA ENCOURAGED Dr. Cameron to fully explore his “psychic driving” concept of correcting madness through completely erasing one’s memory! and re-writing the psyche! These “Driving” experiments involve: PUTTING HUMAN TEST SUBJECTS INTO DRUG, ELECTROSHOCK AND SENSORY DEPRIVATION-INDUCED VEGETATIVE STATES FOR UP TO 3 MONTHS, AND THEN PLAYING TAPE LOOPS OF NOISE OR SIMPLE REPETITIVE STATEMENTS FOR WEEKS OR MONTHS, IN ORDER TO “REWRITE” THE “ERASED” PSYCHE. Dr. Cameron also gives human test subject paralytic drugs and electroconvulsive therapy 30 to 40 times, as part of his experiments! Most of Dr. Cameron’s test subjects suffer PERMANENT damage as a result of his work… when they only started off with minor problems.

There has to be a limit to the following!

4) In order to study how blood flows through children’s brains, researchers at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia perform the following experiment on healthy children, ranging in age from 3-11: THEY INSERT NEEDLES INTO EACH CHILD’S FEMORAL ARTERY (THIGH) AND JUGULAR VEIN (NECK), BRINGING THE BLOOD DOWN FROM THE BRAIN. THEN, THEY FORCE EACH CHILD TO INHALE A SPECIAL GAS THROUGH A FACE MASK. In their subsequent journal: Journal of Clinical Investigation, the article existent in this study, the researcher’s note that, in order to perform the experiment, they had to restrain some of the child subjects by bandaging them to boards.

Sound pessimistically inhumane yet?

5) 1962: Researchers at Laurel Children’s Center in Maryland test experimental acne antiobiotics on children, continuing their tests after half of the young test subjects develop SEVERE liver damage because the experimental medication. 6) 1963: The FDA begins requiring that a new pharmaceutical undergo 3 human clinical trials before it will approve it. From 1962 to 1980, pharmaceutical companies satisfied that requirement by running phase I trials, which determine a drug’s toxicity, on prison inmates, giving them small amounts of cash for compensation- look at the results though:

1963- Chester M. Southam, who injected Ohio State Prison inmates with live cancer cells in 1952, performs the same procedure on 22 senile, African-American female patients at the Brooklyn Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in order to watch their immunological response. Southam tells the patients that they are receiving “some cells”, but leaves out the fact they are CANCER CELLS!! he claims he doesn’t obtain informed consent from the patients because he does not want to frighten them by telling them what he is doing, but he nevertheless TEMPORARILY loses his medical license because of it. Ironically, he EVENTUALLY BECOMES PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY…!

1963-1966: for 3 years New York University researcher Saul Krugman promises parents with mentally disabled children definite enrollment into the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, N.Y., a resident mental institution for mentally retarded children, in exchange for their signatures on a consent form for procedures presented as “vaccinations”. In reality, the procedures involve deliberately infecting children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract made from the feces of infected patients!! just so that Krugman can study the course of viral hepatitis as well as the effectiveness of a hepatitis vaccine. 1978- The CDC begins experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials in NY. Its ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. Professor Wolf Szmuness of the Columbia University School of Public Health had made the vaccine’s infective serum from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and then developed it in chimpanzees! The only animal susceptible to hepatitis B. Leading to the theory that HIV originated in Chimpanzees before being transferred over to humans via this vaccine! Only a few MONTHS after, 1,083 homosexual men receive the vaccine, NY physicians begin noticing cases of Kaposis Sarcoma, “Mycoplasma Penetrans” and a new strain of herpes virus among New York’s homosexual community — diseases not usually seem among young, American men, but that would later be known as common opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS (Golizesk).

2 years later, 1980- According to blood samples tested years later for HIV, 20% of all NY homosexual men who PARTICIPATED in the 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Golizesk)—-> The first AIDS case appears in San Francisco. The CDC ACKNOWLEDGES that a disease known as AIDS exists and confirms 26 cases of the disease- all in previously healthy homosexuals living in NY, San Francisco and L.A.– again supporting the speculation that aids originated from the hepatitis B experiments from 1978-1980. 1984: CDC ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 60% OF THOSE RECEIVING HEPATITIS VACCINE ARE HIV +CCC

(1988-2001): The New York City Administration for Children’s Services begins allowing foster care children living about 2 DOZEN CHILDREN’S HOMES TO BE USED IN NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH-SPONSORED (NIH) EXPERIMENTAL AIDS DRUG TRIALS. These children– totalling 465 by the program’s end– experience serious side effects, including inability to walk, diarrhea, vomiting, swollen joints and cramps. Children’s home employees are UNAWARE that they are giving the HIV-infected children experimental drugs! Rather than standard AIDS treatments (New York City ACS, Doran)

1990: The U.S. sends 1.7 million members of the armed forces, 22% of whom are african-american, to the Persian Gulf for the Gulf War “Desert Storm”. MORE THAN 400,000 OF THESE SOLDIERS ARE ORDERED TO TAKE AN EXPERIMENTAL NERVE AGENT MEDICATION CALLED PYRIDOSTIGMINE, WHICH IS LATER BELIEVED TO BE THE CAUSE OF THE GULF WAR SYNDROME- symptoms ranging from skin disorders, neurological disorders, incontinence, uncontrollable drooling and vision problems- affecting Gulf War veterans (Golizesk)

1992: Columbia University’s New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine give 100 males- mostly African-American and Hispanic, all between the ages of 6 and 10 and all the younger brothers of juvenile delinquents– 10 milligrams of fefluramine (fen-fen) per kilogram of body weight! in order to test the theory that low serotonin levels are linked to violent or aggressive behavior…..!!!!! Parents of the participants received $125 each, including a $25 Toys’R’ Us gift certificate. 1993: Clinton administration announces plans for a National Childhood Vaccination Program. 103rd Congress introduces $732,s733,HR1460, legislation that would attempt to vaccine allll children in the U.S., WHILE SEVERELY LIMITING EXEMPTIONS PARENTS COULD CLAIM: THE BILLS ALSO SEEK TO SET UP A NATIONAL VACCINE REGISTRY TO TRACK DOWN PARENTS WHO RESIST!!!! This is going on EVEN THOUGH THE SEATTLE TIME AT THE SAME TIME REPORTS THAT ALL POLIO IN THE US IS CAUSED BY VACCINES!!!! (6/10/93). 1995 (what a year!!)

March 15th President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), former human subjects, including those who were used in experiments as children, give SWORN TESTIMONIES STATING THAT THEY WERE SUBJECTED TO RADIATION EXPERIMENTS AND/OR BRAINWASHED, HYPNOTIZED, DRUGGED, PSYCHOLOGICALLY TORTURED, THREATENED AND RAPED DURING CIA EXPERIMENTS. If you need to check: Christina DiNicola from (1966-1976) in Tucson, Arizona, Claudia Mullen’s experience with Dr. Sidney Gottlieb (of MKULTRA fame) and Suzanne Starr in Colorado. President Clinton publicly apologizes to the thousands of people who were victims of MKULTRA and other mind-control experimental programs.

Want to know more? Write to me…..

President Barrack Obama has announced his support to an agreement between the USA and the UAE whereby nuclear energy technology would be shared amongst the two nations. H.H. Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan has also released a statement.

Both letters can be read Here.

What reprecussions do you think this will have to the GCC nuclear program? And will this help with managing use of nuclear energy in the Middle-East?

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari

Dr. Saba Valadkhan is a world-renowned biomedical scientist and the Assistant Professor of Case Western Reserve University of USA.
After graduating from the Tehran University of Medial Sciences, Saba Valadkhan moved to New York where she could continue her further studies at the Columbia University upon the fellowship which she had been granted from RNA Research Society.
This young Iranian scientist has won several international awards for her effective, determinant contribution to the field of Molecular Biology such as Peter Sajovic Memorial Award, Harold M. Weintraub Graduate Student Award and James Howard McGregor Prize.
In 2005, she was awarded the American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) award of Young Scientist of the Year for her breakthrough in understanding the mechanism of spliceosomes which was something unprecedented and innovative until that time.
By developing a new strategy to prevent the occurrence of some disastrous cancer types, she identified and determined a slight and insignificant deficiency in the functionality of DNA strands and found an effective way of solving it.
Following is the text of exclusive interview with Dr. Saba Valadkhan in which a stack of interesting subjects around the details of her latest discovery, scientific community of Iran and the prospect of research in Iran and has been discussed.

Dr. Valadkhan; we know that your landmark discovery in understanding the actual function of Spliceosome lead you toward receiving the prominent 2005 AAAS Young Scientist Award which was a honor for all of Iranians, rather than yourself. Would you please elucidate for us that, in a simple and general language, what your discovery specifically was and how much it would be useful to solve RNA-related problems practically?

Human genome has many fascinating features, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the fact that our genes come in fragments. In our genome, we have between 25,000 to 100,000 genes, depending on whom you ask. Now each human gene is on average divided into 8 fragments, but some genes are divided into as many as 100 fragments.

As we all know, our genetic information is stored in DNA strands, which are very long, thin linear polymers, just like very long strings of pearls, except that instead of pearls we have DNA nucleotides adenosine, guanosine, cytidine and thymidine. You can think of them as four different types of pearls, of four different colors, for example. Our genetic information is stored as the sequence of these four DNA nucleotides, for example, two adenosines followed by three guanosines mean: the product of this gene should be taken to the surface of the cell, and so on.

Now imagine that the gene that has the information for making hemoglobin is divided into three fragments, to use a simple example. It means that after a certain combination of nucleotides that indicate the beginning of a gene, we have about 300 nucleotides that constitute fragment 1 of hemoglobin, followed by 5000 nucleotides that are not part of the hemoglobin gene. Then we have another 250 nucleotides that form the fragment 2 of hemoglobin, followed by 3000 intervening nucleotides, and finally, 180 bases that make up the last fragment of the hemoglobin gene, followed by a certain sequence of nucleotides that indicate the end of the gene. Clearly, in order for our bodies to make hemoglobin, these fragments should be put together.

The way that this is done in our bodies is that whenever our bodies need to make hemoglobin, they make a copy of the hemoglobin gene from the start sequence to the end sequence, this contains the three hemoglobin gene fragments and the two long stretches of nucleotides that separate them. Then, the beginning and ends of these intervening sequences are recognized by the cell, and they are removed, and the three hemoglobin gene fragments are attached together. Only then, after all the extra sequences are gone, will this copy of the hemoglobin gene be used by the cell for making hemoglobin.

This process, the removal of the intervening sequences that separate gene fragments, is called splicing, and the group of molecules in the cell that perform this job are collectively referred to as “the spliceosome”.

Now imagine what would happen if splicing is performed incorrectly, for example, if the beginning of the second fragment of hemoglobin is mistakenly recognized as part of the intervening sequence. Then, the spliced copy that is used by the cell will lack the information that was contained in the beginning of the second fragment, which can result in a hemoglobin that cannot bind oxygen. Red blood cells are made, but they cannot function. Or conversely, if part of the intervening sequence is by mistake recognized as a piece of the hemoglobin gene fragments. Then, we have extra information that might tell the cells, by mistake, that the resulting hemoglobin protein should be rapidly destroyed by the cell.

The result would be a severe lack of hemoglobin, although the cell is making a lot of it. The clinical outcome of both cases would be Thalassemia. And these were just two of the many possible problems. Remember that each human gene, on average, has 7 of these intervening sequences, and that every time our bodies need to access the information in our genes, they need to make a copy of the gene and splice it correctly.

At any given moment in the cell, there are more than 200,000 copies of different genes that are used for various cellular functions. Now you can see how incredibly critical splicing is. One mistake is enough for one cell to die or become severely ill. Indeed, it is thought that more than half of all human genetic diseases are caused by mistakes in splicing. And splicing-related diseases are not limited to genetic diseases. Any disease with a genetic element, such as cancers, neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, etc, can result from splicing mistakes.

I hope I have convinced you by now that splicing is a very important cellular process! The spliceosome, which is the assembly of molecules that perform splicing, is extremely complicated, as expected. However, this complexity prevents us from understanding its function. Thus, despite all the human tragedies caused by splicing-related diseases, we are very far from understanding the problem and curing it. What I did was to make a simple model for the spliceosome, which allows us to understand this critical process. Clearly, this opens the door to understanding how splicing-related diseases happen and hopefully, finding a cure.

With all of your explications, we see that a great respect is being paid to the “Molecular Biology” that is your academic major of study, but seems to be somewhat less known in Iran and the rest of Middle East, as well. What kind of biology branch is it and which sort of subjects it deals with?

Molecular biology is in fact an approach to biology, rather than a field of study. In molecular biology, we try to understand biology at the level of molecules: which molecules are involved in each biological process, how they interact with each other, and how they are made and destroyed by the cell, when necessary. You can use this approach in any field in biology, from neurobiology to botany to microbiology, molecules govern how living cells function, and molecular biology can tell us exactly how these molecules work.
It is an extremely powerful way of approaching biological questions, and these days it is impossible to have an in-depth knowledge of biological phenomena without employing molecular biology. A very large share of new discoveries in medical sciences is based on molecular approaches. For example, in modern cancer therapy, screening of the population for early detection, diagnosis, classification and treatment are all based on molecular biology approaches. Molecular biology has already revolutionized medicine and will continue to do so in the future.

It’s more than 15 years that you are far from your homeland, Iran. Do you have still some scientific relations with universities and institutions inside the country? Are you enthusiastic to return to Iran someday if the preliminaries of a substantive scientific environment for you are provided satisfactorily?

I am trying to forge scientific relationships with the Iranian research community, and I am hoping to have a broader interaction with the Iranian scientific community in the future. I am unfortunately not very familiar with the status of research in Iran, but I know that the number and quality of scientific publications from Iran have been on the rise, which is a very encouraging sign Hopefully this trend will continue.

The status of science seems to be improving in Iran, however, the infrastructure is still a concern, and interaction with the broader scientific community is still very limited. These factors prevent the science enterprise in Iran to achieve its full potential. Hopefully with effective planning, sufficient funding, and the cooperation of the scientific community these issues will become less of a hurdle in the future. There are many talented scientists currently in Iran that if given the opportunity will do great things. I want to stress that we don’t lack talent or skill, what is limiting science in Iran is the lack infrastructure and the right type of environment. Even if all the Iranian scientists currently living abroad return to Iran, there will not be any significant changes in the quantity or quality of scientific productivity in Iran until these shortcomings are addressed. Now if the government solves these shortcomings, the scientists currently residing in Iran are more than qualified to do cutting edge research.

So is it going to be fair that we conclude Iran lacks the basic fundamentals and accouterments of effective scientific, research works to be carried out in?

See, I have young Iranian scientists in my laboratory that have previously performed research in Iranian universities. They all agree that in terms of equipment, they had all they needed in Iran, that is they had better equipment in Iran than they do in my lab. They also had easy access to research animals and human tissues or samples, for which we need to conduct three months’ worth of paperwork in US. What seemed to be limiting their research was access to reagents, many of which were ordered from abroad and took a long time to arrive and perhaps more importantly, not appreciating all they had. We Iranians have a tendency to see the empty half of the glass, and this is something that hopefully will be alleviated by more extensive interaction with laboratories abroad. There are shortcomings everywhere, so we all need to use our talents and energy to overcome them.

Therefore, what causes that a load of young Iranian talents leave the country each year to abroad and make us encounter the phenomenon of “Brains Escape”?

I think this is the wrong way of looking at the problem and in fact, it’s not seeing the real problem at all. In Iran, we can’t complain about brain drain, we have many more educated, trained forces than can be gainfully employed. We don’t need any additional educated work force; we already have more than the country needs. The real problem in Iran is that the country spends a lot of resources training medical doctors or physics PhDs and they can’t find jobs that match their training and end up doing carpet business. Our problem is brain inflation, not brain drain. It is not that educated people choose to live and work abroad despite having equally good opportunities in their home countries, the issue is that they don’t have acceptable choices at home. Nobody enjoys the often very painful process of emigration, but lack of opportunities forces many to leave their home countries. And let’s not forget that after these “overflow” educated forces leave, they often remain committed to contributing to their motherland in any way possible. There are many prominent Iranian academics abroad that have made significant contributions to the human society that have made all Iranians proud, and that continue to contribute to their homeland by transferring their knowledge through teaching in universities and workshops in Iran.

If we put the work force aside, we can take a glance at Iran’s scientific stride from the view of scientific indicators including ISI, as well. What are the most remarkable ones among these indicators and what they narrate about Iran’s research productivity?

There are many such indices and depending on whom you talk with, they might prefer one or the other. I think a reliable way of measuring the level of scientific productivity in the biomedical field is the number of publications in Pubmed-listed journals. Number of publications in top tier journals in biomedical fields, Science, Nature, Cell and the New England Journal of Medicine, is a good indicator of the quality of scientific work done in a country. I took a moment and calculated these numbers for Iran and a number of other countries in Asia. Although the total level of productivity in Iran is still lower than Turkey, India and China, while we are doing better than all our other neighbors, the rate of growth of our productivity has been excellent, although it has slowed down in the last three years. We need to address this slow down and correct it. In terms of quality, we need to improve but I think as our level of productivity rises, so will the scientific quality.

In your view, what kind of efforts should the Iranian universities, scientific institutions and organizations make in order to attain the international position and authenticity they deserve for?

In every country, science is mainly a state enterprise, most of the funding everywhere comes from the government. If we want to improve our scientific standing in the world, we should ask our government for better planning and more funding.
There are several issues to consider. One is that scientific progress does not happen overnight, it takes time and patience on the part of both the funding agency and the scientist. While the government should made a long-term commitment to a steadily increasing level of funding, the scientists should be given the level of job security they need to endure the many years of effort it takes for a major discovery to be made.
This is both in terms of salary levels that should be sufficiently high to retain the scientists in the workforce and prevent them from going into carpet business!
And also in terms of long-term stability of their jobs, Scientists should feel that their jobs are extremely secure, and they will lose their jobs only if they are not productive scientifically. Although it goes without saying, meritocracy is pivotal as the basis for employment should be scientific credentials and nothing else. The government can encourage the development of the required infrastructure. For instance, the level of chemistry research is very high in Iran; we clearly have many good chemists. Why do we need to import chemicals and reagents? Why not encourage these chemists to start companies and support the needs of the Iranian scientific community? Finally, something else that is sorely lacking in Iran is a spirit of collaboration and self-sufficiency.
Sharing expensive equipment and reagents is a must, even labs in Harvard share! Sometimes during my visits to Iranian universities I hear from doctoral students that although the neighboring lab has such and such equipment that they need, they are not allowed to use it which is unacceptable. Self-sufficiency is also important. We should note that not everything should be bought from abroad. Many expensive reagents are easy to make but unfortunately I hear about these reagents being ordered from abroad, which is a waste of money and time.

The second anniversary of Anousheh Ansari’s adventurous travel to the spatial station as the first Iranian space explorer passed over with the reticence of global media who have been busy analyzing the very earliest “side effects” of President-elect Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 US Presidential Elections.

In the heat of Ansari’s space voyage, American media broached bunches of controversial issues such as the reluctance of half-blooded astronaut to introduce herself as Iranian or Muslim, but she never found the opportunity to clarify this.

Furthermore, most of the newspapers or websites dedicated their conversations to professional and technical matters when interviewing Anousheh Ansari which caused many stories to remain untold.

Following is the text of exclusive interview with the first female private space explorer Anousheh Ansari, the Iranian businesswomen who has perpetuated the name of Iran in the 2007 edition of Guinness World Records Book with her everlasting record.

Mrs. Ansari! Two years passed since you made that historic travel to the spatial station as the first female space explorer; but on that specific time the mainstream media focused on you, not only for being a female voyager, but also for being an Iranian Muslim. What’s your conception of being a Muslim born in Iran? Are you restraining to announce or approve it publicly?

I have always advertised my Persian roots and I’m proud to do so. I always start my story by telling everyone that I was born in Iran and show the map of Iran with my place of birth, Mashhad. My Iranian root is a big part of who I am the same way that my life in America has shaped my life.I have always been a spiritual person and my spiritual beliefs were strengthened during my trip to Space. When you see the earth from space and understand how small and fragile it is compared to the dark universe that surrounds it, it gives you a new perspective on life and how small and insignificant we are and how silly it is to fight over things that are but a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things.

Furthermore, I had also brought a copy of Holy Quran with myself to the spatial station which was a personal decision without any political motivation.I also carried prayers given to me by my parents and friends.Also I have to add something for the accuracy of title which I had been given, which many newspapers and TV channels broadcast it mistakenly. I was considered the first Private women space traveler, not the first female astronaut.

The first woman cosmonaut was also the first woman to ever fly to space and her name was Valentina Terishkova. The Guinness Book of World Records has registered my name as the first Private woman space explorer as well as the first Iranian in space.

Many of your fans or those who follow your prosperities regularly remember that you had started the blogging carrier few months before commencing the space mission. Your space blog was gaining an unprecedented popularity worldwide, but you stopped updating it suddenly. What had happened on that time?

I started blogging because I wanted to share my experience with as many people as possible and I was very happy to see how well receive the blog was. However writing from the heat and writing something of significance, requires a level of dedication that I could afford at that time.

I am very engaged with my new company and between my educational projects and my business; I have very little time to blog. I enjoyed blogging and read most of the comments people wrote to me; hence, I continue to receive many messages, I cannot possibly read and respond to every message I get because it is more than a full time job, but I try to keep up with them.

At the beginning, when the slated schedule of your affiliated company for the space program was announced, you were not supposed to be that astronaut who had been appointed to run for the mission.

But after your Japanese colleague failed to pass the medical and practical examinations successfully, you were replaced immediately which should have been a kind of shocking news for Mr. Enomoto beside of being an unbelievable, exciting incident to you. am I right on that?

As soon as I found out, I called him to see how he was doing. On one had as you mentioned, I was very exited at the prospect of being able to fly to space, on the other hand I felt uneasy since I had become friend with Mr. Enomoto during our training together and I knew how much he wanted to fly.When I talked to him, naturally he was disappointed, but he was determined to take care of his medical issue and to try again to fly in a future flight. He encouraged me to fly and offered to help.

I asked him if I could do anything for him and he gave me a few of his personal items to fly to ISS with me, which I did.

Once the news on your space exploration came out in the media, many critics and journalists worldwide stated that $20 million is too much to be spent for such an individual intention which could be potentially used for charity or instructional purposes, instead. Do you agree with them?

I believe that each person is entitled to their opinion. My family and I worked hard and made many sacrifices for the money we earned and the decision on how to spend it should be ours alone.I support causes that are important to me and my family in the ways that I believe is effective.At the same time I feel that my trip has impacted many lives and inspired many people around the world to pursue their dreams.

Having hope and inspiration is a priceless gift and I was fortunate enough to have been able to play a small role in giving a glimpse of hope and inspiration to many.

For the last question, let me ask if you have any idea or suggestion for the scientific communities and researchers of Iran to improve their skills and find their dissevered global position? 

I believe Iranians are very smart and have great potential given the right opportunities. This is obvious based on their accomplishments in their new homelands around the world.

Unfortunately their opportunities are limited inside Iran and because of wars and sanctions and other issues, the country is not considered as art of the advanced world. I believe if Iran would join the global economy and provided the right opportunities, it could advance and catch-up with developed countries with a few year lag.

In many respects, the light of Israel has shined brightly for the world to behold. Due in large part to the boundless courage of her defenders, she came into being out of the ashes of the Holocaust, and in spite of a concerted and protracted effort to destroy her. She nurtured and sustained a vibrant democracy even in the face of persistent and existential threats to her security. She prospered economically using very few natural resources, save the natural resourcefulness of her citizenry. She successfully absorbed disproportionately high numbers of refugees with open and loving arms. She has pioneered untold advances in science and technology, while holding fast to a love of art and culture. In these, and many other ways, Israel’s accomplishments can be considered A Light Unto The Nations.

And yet, Israel’s history remains a mixed bag of good and bad, as is the case with almost all nations on earth. Each accomplishment is offset by a detriment of sorts. True, she has met the security challenges forcefully, but at the expense of occupying and subduing a neighboring population which feels hopeless and dispossessed. True, she has prospered economically, but at the expense of an increasingly wider gap between the haves and the have-nots. True, she maintains a vibrant democracy, but at the expense of a contentious vying for power between secular and religious Jews, and between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority within its borders.

At every turn, each success is countered by an equally significant threat, either from within, or from without. It is as if the path to Israel’s perfection is lined with a multitude of impediments, like a ship passing in the night through treacherous waters teeming with hidden mines and explosives. In this regard, Israel’s light does not always shine as a beacon of hope, but as the light of a lighthouse, point to unseen dangers, and lighting the way toward a safe passage.

The threats to Israel, as she turns 60, are the threats we all face in this increasingly globalized world: How do we usher in an age of peace in the face of ideological extremism which is hell bent on war? How do we defend our way of life, when extremist elements are aligning to take that life away? How do we empower the dispossessed with a Vision of Hope for the future, when that vision seems to be slipping away? How do we close the gap between the wealthy few, and the impoverished many? How do we prosper economically while protecting the health and sanctity of our environment? How do we defend ourselves militarily without dashing the hopes and aspirations of the innocent? How do we advance scientifically and technologically without losing sight of the values and emotions which make us human?

The answer to these and other questions rests in the promise that Israel offers as she forges ahead toward the next 60 years. And the answer she comes up with can shine a light for others to follow. And what would that answer look like? It’s not all that complicated: Israel will use her technology, her knowledge, her drive, and her inclination toward business, to partner with Arab entrepreneurs, to solicit Saudi investment, to hire and train Arab workers, to produce green technology products, to clean the earth, and to safeguard our place upon it. The answer is staring us in the face, if we care to look; Good- paying jobs, aimed at green technology products, with the ultimate goals of: revitalizing the stagnant economies of the Middle East, conditioning people for peace, neutralizing the effects of extremist ideology, protecting the environment, and giving the impoverished and the dispossessed a helping hand out of the clutches of extreme poverty and hopelessness. All this can be done, believe it or not, while enabling all concerned to turn a healthy profit.

With God’s help, Israel will continue to shine her light unto the nations. Every once in a while her light will shine with pride; the pride born of success. But more often than not, Israel will have no choice but to face the same challenges that all nations now face in this, the 21st century. And in that struggle, she will continue to shine her light, to point to the dangers which lie ahead, and to point to solutions which are effective, equitable, and just. In this manner, Israel will truly fulfill her destiny to shine as A Light Unto The Nations.

Expelling PZ Myers from theater sounded even more when he wrote the story in his famous weblog Pharyngula and it became hottest topic throughout the blogosphere on Monday, March 24th according to BlogPulse, a service of Nielsen Buzzmetrics. There were also over 800 results on Technorati. Read here and here for the next events.

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and NCSE head Eugenie Scott, who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the “intersection of science and religion”, with a blurb which described the strong support that had been accumulated for evolution, and contrasted this with the religious who rejected it, and the controversy this caused. Then they have cheated on scientists. 3
Also today, Richard Dawkins has written an article entitled ‘Lying for Jesus?’ about this fraud on his website.
Here is the story and about 120 links (till the time I am writing the post) that coverage it: PZ Myers Expelled, Gains Sainthood

By the way, although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community, [4,5] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God, but because it is not scientific and instead is pseudoscience. And also intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth. 3

——————————————
1. Cornelia Dean. “Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin“, The New York Times, September 27, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-09-28.
2. New mutation in Darwin debate – Entertainment News, Weekly, Media – Variety
3. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
4. “99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution” according to Finding the Evolution in Medicine
5. One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.85% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science. As reported by Newsweek, “By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared ‘abruptly’.” (Keeping God out of the Classroom, Washington and bureau reports, Larry Martz and Ann McDaniel, Newsweek, CIX (26): 23-24, June 29, 1987, ISSN 00289604)

Note: I’m not here advocating Atheism or Theism or someone’s opinions, but try to find some truth beyond Science and Religion conflicts! I advocate the truth; if you think that I’m wrong, then jump in and make your discussions! Its a long post, then I suggest you an offline read!

“The Recliner Commentaries” wrote a quote by Antony Flew from Flew’s new book, “There is a God; How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind”, that is not the case. But I posted a comment about Flew’s turning from atheism to some beliefs (maybe theism):
“We know that Flew changed his ideology from not being believer (atheist) to being to some extent believer that he doesn’t really know what it is himself! He might have been fanaticized in the complexity of genetic codes and its interesting world! But we should be more aware! Let’s see what’s happening!

Everyone would be amazed of the complexity of the hardware that has been used in computers! To whom that they know nothing about electricity, such as gardeners, barbers, nurses, biologists and philosophers, it is every complex and interesting; but what about an electronic engineer?

Have you ever wondered about a heart surgery? Or some brain surgeries that we don’t understand what the surgeons are doing? Aren’t surgeons some kind of gods to us? Haven’t you been interested in the leader who sits Apollo’s on moon by some devices from earth?And this is the same as a biologic subject that is common to biologists and amazing for engineers and philosophers! Isn’t it?So some things are obvious in the eye of their professionals and amazing, fantastic and complex to another! Isn’t it?

It is the case of Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist and Flew as a philosopher!When Flew says that I’m interested in complexity of DNA or something like this, his reasons are of not knowing DNA, its complexity and its origin; nothing else!Let’s see the truth!

We are all humans coming in this planet and die in this planet! We do not know about after death and it would be a tragedy for us to be finished in this way! Everyone wants to be! Being continuous! Can you suppose to not being here tomorrow? It is something sad that makes everyone to convince himself that there is another life and maybe some creator that rules the unseeing world!!!I’m not here to say that Flew feared of dying with a tragic end, but MAYBE when he felt confused about DNA or something like this, he turned to a believer easier and doesn’t want to listen to biologists such as Dawkins! Maybe!Even in this case, he is a Pantheist, not a believer in God, but in science! And he mentions that there are some orders or arrangements that are complex!

By the way his approach wasn’t very intelligent to me! I’d appreciated a better one; it didn’t satisfy me!I’ll write a post about this on my weblog and please inform me of your probable answer to mine!”

Then he wrote me back:
“Since you seem to dismiss Antony Flew because he is a philosopher rather than a scientist, let’s discuss a scientist.

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with a Ph.D. from MIT–one of our countries most prestigious scientific institutions. Here are some execrpts from one of his books (note: he’s not writing here for scientists but so average readers can understand):

“When a specific protein is needed by a cell, a chemical messenger is sent from the outer cell, through a pore in the nuclear membrane, into the nucleus. How the messenger knows to go to the nucleus remains a mystery. This messenger finds the needed chromosome (one of the twenty-three pairs), locks onto that chromosome, and moves along, nucleotide by nucleotide, until it comes to the specific sequence of bases that marks the beginning of the gene that codes for the desired protein.

At this stage, the signaling molecule changes shape, and in doing so allows—or causes—and enzyme called DNA-dependent RNA polymerase (I’ll call it RNA-P) to join the action.

The RNA-P opens the helix, reads each nucleotide base, selects the correct complementary base from among the four types floating in the intracellular slurry, concurrently selects…the molecules that make up the spine of the lengthening strand of mRNA being manufactured, trailing behind the RNA-P, joins the just-selected base to the spine, takes the portion of DNA that has just been read and reseals it to the parallel DNA strand which it was separated, opens the portion of DNA to be read next, reads it, and continues the juggling act til it reaches a coded stop order…And RNA-P does this manufacturing at fifty bases a second…Keep in mind,
this entire sequence is performed by molecules reading molecules, molecules selecting molecules, molecules walking along with other molecules.

Don’t project too much brain power or body power into this system. It’s not little people in there. It’s simply molecules that somehow seem to act like little knowledgeable people, as if they had a wisdom of their own. Which they do (192-199).

This is only one small part of a much more complicated process thattakes place in what was once called the “simple cell.” At one time scientists used to imagine that, given enough time (billions of years) simple cells couldevolve by themselves purely by chance or natural selection. The kicker here is that “it all developed so very rapidly, almost simultaneously with theappearance of liquid water on earth. We have absolutely phenomenal complexity,not after billions of years of evolution, but at the very beginning of the entire process (193-194)!”

End Schroeder quote.

Scientists once thought in terms of the evolution of a simple cell. Now we know that there is no such thing as a simple cell. The very simplest cell known to man–the eubacteria, Mycoplasma genitalium, contains 580,000 nucleotid pairs per haploid genome. It if far more complex than the computers you mentioned. But computers were designed and assembled by intelligent designers. You apparently want me to believe that incredibly complex organiaisms like Mycoplasma genitalium just somehow evolved by chance or natural selection?

Flew, Schroeder and many others are now pointing out that this is scientifically impossible.

It is only the blind faith of atheism, the dogma of Darwinism, and the self-appointed high priests of the scientific establishment that keeps people hanging on to the myth of naturalism.”

And here are my Answers to his:
Dear Dennis:
I think we should dismiss Flew’s philosophical views since his life was full of atheism arguments and proves, not for proving theism!
It seems the greatest task that Gerald Schroeder has done in his life was his PhD in MIT! Since I haven’t found anymore information about him on net! And he has also written some books defying Old Testament god! That’s great because I haven’t written a book!

But beside his valuable tasks, when he says and finds the Six Days of Creation that has been mentioned by Yahweh, the main Schroeder’s idea for matching science with religion, first of all we should have it in mind that science has proven that the order of days that are told in Bible is absolutely false!

Second, there was not just a BigBang, but BigBangs! As you may know in the case of BigBang, all the universe matter condenses, then bangs, distributes and again condensational period comes! So it seems that applying just six days (who has told that day equals period; but we assume these words are the same for the sake of God) to creation process while unordered is again false! Maybe god has forgotten what before the last BigBang was or he (or she) might not even knew the other BigBangs before creation of earth and human being on it!
As a scientist, Gerald Schroeder might knows this rule! But he dismisses and says I matched the universe steps to Yahweh tales! (if we assume that these tales are accurate!)

Third, when he is about to find a solution of matching Biblical tales to science, its more accurate to explain these tales by Erich Von Daeniken, the writer of “Chariots of Gods”, or maybe Alan Alford with his book, “Gods of New millennium”! These theories of alien gods haven’t been rejected yet and ease Schroeder’s toils of matching Biblical tales to science!

Fourth, there are vast of creational scientists that have better arguments than Schroeder’s! Again that mistake is at work: Schroeder seems to be wondered and confused by the complex world of DNA, as he can’t truly understand it, biology and Natural Selection! It is obvious from the way of his approaches to cellular science!

Fifth, Schroeder’s reason as you said isn’t scientific and as I say is not original and some irony; and this way of writing makes no light on this debate and isn’t helpful!

Sixth, as we talked about Antony Flew and I told that he don’t know what is going on about DNA and its complexity, for showing you his confesses about not well knowing science, I refer to some of his quotes from “The Turning of an Atheist” article:

“In his letter of Jan. 2, 2005, Flew says that if the “so confident, atheist polemicist Richard Dawkins” tells him that Schroeder is wrong, he will admit that Schroeder is wrong. But he assumes that Dawkins accepts Schroeder’s arguments, since Dawkins “made no reference to your article.” It’s truly odd: Flew says he believes that since Dawkins failed to cite the graduate student Richard Carrier attacking Schroeder, then Schroeder’s scholarship is likely sound. In other words, if Flew was misled, he can blame Dawkins, who holds an Oxford professorship in the “public understanding of science” yet failed to inform his public that Schroeder was a crank. Nonetheless, Flew promises Carrier, he is prepared to reject Schroeder. Flew once believed that Genesis might be scientifically accurate, but “as it is not, that’s that. I am rather sorry.”

Again it seems that Flew isn’t into Schroeder’s claims and he changes his mind and belief by a blowing wind!

It seems that Dawkins wasn’t able to answer Schroeder here; but actually he has answered these creationists in his books abundantly! Richard Dawkins book, “Climbing Mount Improbable” is a great explanation to these wondered-of-life-complexity creationists, that I offer you to read!
And finally as you used some of Schroeder’s quotes, I do the same from Richard Dawkins last book “God Delusion” to explain Schroeder being fault:

“The process by which plants, whether tiny pimpernels or massive wellingtonias, acquire the energy to build themselves is photosynthesis. Watchtower again: ‘ “There are about eventy separate chemical reactions involved in photosynthesis,” one biologist said. “It is truly a miraculous event.” Green plants have been called nature’s “factories” – beautiful, quiet, nonpolluting, producing oxygen, recycling water and feeding the world. Did they just happen by chance? Is that truly believable?’ No, it is not believable … Creationist ‘logic’ is always the same. Some natural phenomenon is too statistically improbable, too complex, too beautiful, too awe inspiring to have come into existence by chance. Design is the only alternative to chance that the authors can imagine. Therefore a designer must have done it. And science’s answer to this faulty logic is also always the same. Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer? Chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested. And it is not only a workable solution; it is a solution of stunning elegance and power.
What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at the starting gate? The answer is that natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the reach of chance. It is these end products that form the subjects of the creationist’s wearisomely recycled argument. The creationist completely misses the point, because he … insists on treating the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event. He doesn’t understand the power of accumulation.” (120-121)

“In Climbing Mount Improbable, I expressed the point in a parable. One side of the mountain is a sheer cliff, impossible to climb, but on the other side is a gentle slope to the summit. On the summit sits a complex device such as an eye or a bacterial flagellar motor. The absurd notion that such complexity could spontaneously self-assemble is symbolized by leaping from the foot of the cliff to the top in one bound. Evolution, by contrast, goes around the back of the mountain and creeps up the gentle slope to the summit: easy!” (121-122)

In his books, he gives very creative examples about the gradual Natural Selection that creationist should pay attention to.

“The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin’s theory.
Darwin himself said as much: ‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.’ Darwin could find no such case, and nor has anybody since Darwin’s time, despite strenuous, indeed desperate, efforts. Many candidates for this holy grail of creationism have been proposed. None has stood up to analysis.
In any case, even though genuinely irreducible complexity would wreck Darwin’s theory if it were ever found, who is to say that it wouldn’t wreck the intelligent design theory as well? Indeed, it already has wrecked the intelligent design theory, for, as I keep saying and will say again, however little we know about God, the one thing we can be sure of is that he would have to be very very complex and presumably irreducibly so!” (125)

End Dawkins quote.

Flew should read these lines to figure out that Schroeder is again one of that fanaticized scientists and is WRONG and is a crank!

Ok, if we assume that god has created the complex universe (in six days) as we, the intelligent and complex-minded creatures did computers, and god created complex and intelligent universes with complex and intelligent human beings in it (we assume as you said, every complex and intelligent being needs a creative and intelligent designer), then which complex and intelligent entity did create complex and intelligent God? And you apparently want me to believe that incredibly complex designer like God just somehow evolved by chance? Doesn’t he need more complex designer?

I don’t know why Schroeder and other creationists can’t see much deeper in the Natural Selection and Darwinism! Just try it for the sake of bringing good reasons!

p.s. I’m ready for any discussion and discussion makes me happy

And read more here:
ISSR Statement on the Concept of ‘Intelligent Design’
Not a very Bigbang about Genesis
Flew, Schroeder, Varghese: What a company!

‘Who is God’ was a post in MEY, of that author, Nissim, who is trying to make a practical use of Common Sense in order to make the world a bit better. As usual, this big phenomenon called God, stimulated many people to comment on the subject, both Atheists and Theists… and again I failed to keep myself from the discussion.

In such debates, it is very common for people to ask/wonder if there is a ‘Proof’ for the existence of God. Honestly, I don’t know if there is such a flawless proof. But, besides my obsession about Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel (footnote), I want to share another point here: Experimental Sciences are inherently unable to prove anything.

When a guess about the function of an observable phenomenon happens to explain it better than other guesses, it turns into a theory. But this theory (a) neither ensures prediction of future experiences, and (b) nor is able to prove that it is the best possible guess. The latter (b) means that probably we may find out later that this theory has already failed to cover some aspects of past occurrences neglected in out first assessment of the phenomenon and the guess related to it. And the former (a) translates into the fact that we can never gather all the causes which might influence phenomenon.

Then, what do Experimental Sciences do? They provide evidences for us to conclude what is more likely to be true. Since examples usually make a better sense, let me say that: using all those Mechanic Theories, some engineers fabricate an airplane and say: “as we know, this device is more likely to fly if guided in a proper way, and will land safely if directed by an experienced pilot. But for sure, nobody has ever guaranteed that it would work, for there are lots of already unknown causes which might affect the behavior of this device and let it fail.” This statement is obviously from a deterministic point of view, from that point which believes every effect has a cause. Those who do not believe in causality as a universal rule, they have a much harder time speaking about the probability of something, for probability is only valid when causality is considered a rule.

One might argue: “yeah, one day we may be able to conclude all possible causes, and that day, we may prove Experimental Theories: Since we know all the possible causes, we may exactly predict the next stage or behavior of every conceivable phenomenon, and that is called Proof.” But an answer is that if some possible causes decide not to reveal themselves to us (whatever the reason), we can never conclude them. Therefore they are able to return/appear at any given time, influence current phenomena and consequently theories, and refute them.

Finally, seeking for an Experimental Proof for anything (including the existence of God)… that is called Mission Impossible.

Footnote: Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel states that in every system of logics, there is at least one true statement which will never be proved; also, there is at least one false statement, which may never be refuted.

I saw an interesting documentary on Al-Arabiya, called “man on four legs.” It’s about a seemingly new disease called quadrupedal gait. They filmed a Kurdish family of 12, 7 of which were crawling on their hands despite the fact that they’re middle aged. Doctors and experts were baffled by this extraordinary phenomena. A case like this has never been reported in scientific literature. It was bad enough that these people were leading unbearable lifestyles, but I found it somewhat insulting that experts would compare them to chimps. The father, a religious man, insists that this is God’s test on his faith in Him. He wasn’t paying attention to the details being discussed. A Turkish professor was talking about the genetics of the human mind, hereditary genes, and unertan symptoms, but the man said he doesn’t want his children to become laboratory rats for scientists. All he wants to see is for them to walk and function normally. Although the problem was not just physical, which makes it even harder. They were mentally incapable of doing the simplest tasks.

Inevitably, Darwin was being discussed (the origins of humans by means of natural selection.) A lot of Muslims deny this, as God is the sole creator of this universe and everything belonging to it. Islam doesn’t deny that evolution took place, but Darwin goes against the belief of God, and when this idea was suggested, the Kurdish translator said that the family is not prepared to deal with any “evidence” that goes against that. The problem with finding a cure for this “disease” is that scientists have always dismissed this possibility as something so unnatural that it couldn’t happen in our lifetime. This is why the study is hard to conduct, there is simply no explanation at this point. Not even the genetics of our brain, chromosomes, or DNA structures could provide a sufficient answer.

Most scientists are saying that it has to do with the environment that this family has been living in. It’s unsanitary and the handicapped members are being physically abused by the villagers. At first, the father said that the house was cursed, but after moving the situation did not change. If anything, it got worse as they were getting older. An Egyptian scientist, also a strong believer in evolution but strictly opposes Darwinism’s theory for religious reasons, noted that we can’t compare them to chimpanzees mainly because they don’t walk on knuckles. Another scientist tried to say that it’s because of the parents’ relationship with each other; they were familially related. I think that’s far from being the case. They were 2nd cousins, and my extended family is full of 1st cousin couples and their children are as healthy as anyone else.

The point here is not to try and find possible solutions or causes of this, I bring this up because I’ve been wondering about this question for a long time: does religion support science? Islam, for instance, clearly does. A lot of disbelievers choose not to believe in any religion because they see it as an excuse not to learn. “God said so, leave it at that!” However, Islam emphasizes the importance of education. All forms of it. But science in particular, perhaps because of the examples provided in the Koran. Upon reading it, one becomes more curious and interested and would therefore want to learn more about things like biology, astronomy, geography, etc. The heart surgeon in the program where this documentary was being debated was religious, but you’d think that he wouldn’t be interested in this field because it’s God’s will if anyone dies from a heart disease. I’ve seen Muslims try to argue that no one but God can remedy a sickness and therefore doctors are just trying to play the role of God by controlling the human mind and body, and I’ve seen other devout Muslim doctors who were inspired to be doctors after reading the Koran and paying attention to its details. This, again, goes back to the Koran and how differently it’s interpreted.

This discussion is just as important as whether or not it’s right for states to be ruled by religious values such as the Sharia law, and whether or not such laws are misportraying this religion. I think the difference here is the limits that we give ourselves depending on how religious we choose to be, and the questions that we ask ourselves: Should we obey a government that supposedly goes by Islamic law? If we rebel against it, does it mean that we’ve sinned? Can we openly deny that it’s proper Islam? Should we go ahead and study the details of science or is it God’s will that certain things happen (diseases, natural disasters, etc)? The conflicting opinions regarding these matters is a testament to the fact that religion really is personal, and while you may “brainwash” people into thinking certain things (for example, in Saudi, half of their laws aren’t related to Islam at all but people believe it is because of the country’s historical reputation) you still can’t deny that doubting your own belief system is perfectly normal and if anything, it strengthens your faith in God. You’ll have a better understanding of the religion you’re a part of. You can’t blindly accept what you’re born into like many people do, that’s just poisonous.

Unfortunately, we can’t do that under the social conditions planted in these lands. Everything you say or do is considered “haram” and whenever you interpret something differently you’ve sinned greatly. And yet, they expect us to grow intellectually and otherwise. How? Most of us lack a basic understanding of religion because we can’t discuss it like normal human beings. It’s much harder to look for the answers than it is to sit down with your eyes and ears closed insisting that you already know everything there is to know about this world by being a Muslim. Most of the Muslims I’ve argued with keep hiding behind their ignorance and instead of informing me on what’s “right” in their opinion, they mock my willingness to learn. Their minds are painful to see through. Schooling has a lot to do with this mentality. Even in private schools where it’s more liberal, you can’t question or doubt. You memorize what’s in your Islamic text books, whether be it the words of God or its interpreters, and whenever you ask a question that might provoke a good discussion, you’re told to be ashamed of the sourly bitter ideas inspired by the “Great Satan,” (i.e, Western beliefs and ideals.)

I don’t think it’s against Islam at all to want to learn more about your religion. God created the brain for a reason. If he wanted us to become mindless automatons, He would have given us a much more simpler mind that’s incapable of critical thinking. I’m a Muslim, and I believe that I will always be one, but every time I read an Islamic book, even those revolving around the doings and good deeds of the Prophet, I can’t help but wonder about the credibility of the stories being told, especially if I’m asked questions by outsiders that I don’t know the answers to, and can’t seem to find the answer. I still don’t know the answers to these questions because there’s still a good portion of the Koran that I haven’t grasped yet, no matter how closely I read into it. I’ve read 3 interpretations by 3 different Imams from 3 different parts of the world, and they varied significantly. For example, two of them denied the study of science saying it’s only there to prove the words of God wrong, and one of the authors strongly encouraged the study of science and education as a whole.

Regulations and limits must end, no matter how offensive it’s going to be to some people. If we want change, then we need to learn how to accept it. I wouldn’t be pondering upon these ideas if I was given the chance to discuss them as a child.

This doesn’t only apply to Islam. There’s a book called Stealing Jesus: How fundamentalism betrays Christianity, and it talks about similar issues, only in the context of American Christiandom. It goes over why people are scared to go against what they have been taught about Christianity because it challenges their ideas, and how they’re discouraged by their preachers to do so as it’s somehow “evil.” This is the root of most extremist behaviors. Intellectual and religious freedom would decrease that by a huge amount, but unfortunately religious competition still exists today, and that step is nowhere near being accomplished. I do have hope, though, that the schooling system, at least in Bahrain, might change for the better, but I have a feeling that I’m only really saying this to help myself sleep at night.