In many Arabic countries nowadays, we are witnessing upheavals of large segments of the population, whether it turns more Islamic or more secular, young or older generations taking control, depends on each of the countries, i.e. Egypt and Tunisia are showing different paths from Libya, Yemen , or even Syria. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and some gulf states are different cases from the rest.
The causes that led to these upheavals, produced by degrees a sort of relaxation in the different constitutions of these regimes, those for whose interest it was to maintain this constitution held to it less, while those who had an interest in modifying it became bolder and stronger.
The rule of some regimes was therefore reconciled with that of the city, while some others reconciled with the heads of tribes, but these were in reality two antagonistic forms of governance which men could not hope to ally forever, and which must sooner or later be at war with each other.
The family regime, indivisible and numerous, was too strong, rich, and too independent for the social power not to feel the temptation, and even the need, of weakening it or even destroying it. Either the city or the tribe could not keep their side of the alliance, for it must in the course of time break up the family regime.
When authority ceases to appear just to the subjects, time must still elapse before it will cease to appear so to the masters. But this happens after a while, and then the master, who no longer believe in the justice of his authority, defends it badly, or ends by renouncing it.
An invincible necessity obliges the masters of different regimes, little by little, to relinquish or obliterate some or all of their omnipotence.
In some countries like Libya, Yemen and Syria, the regimes did no more than to preserve their authority and omnipotence, and in this alone was their gravest injustice; they maintained these laws and constitutions beyond the time when men accepted them without complaints, and maintained them against the will of the people.
It is therefore wise for these family regimes and masters to satisfy these men, their own interests united with humanity recommends concessions.
thanks as usual for your time and patience, and salamat.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
THINK OF IT !!
HAWKING : "THERE IS NO HEAVEN".
By John Rouch
Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of heaven a "fairy story" in an interview with the Guardian newspaper published yesterday.
The physicist, 69, who was diagnosed with A.L.S. at age 21, made the heaven comment in response to a question about his fears of death. "I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he told the news paper.
I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when it's components fail. There is no heaven of after life for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark.
The comments are seen as going beyond those in his 2010 book "the grand design," which stirred up passions with the observation that science can explain the universe's origin without invoking God.
Hawking has far outlived most people who have A.L.S., also known as Lou Gehrig's decease, producing important cosmological research and writing books. His " A brief history of time," published in 1988, has sold more than 9 million copies.
The Guardian interview is the latest the scientist has given to news media in recent weeks. It is published the day before he is scheduled to address the question " Why are we here?" at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London.
In the talk , according to the Guardian, he will argue that the tiny fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged.
" Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.
In Arabic there's an expression that goes by " AKHOU EKHTOU." Meaning literally, the brother of his sister, or brother of your sister, I don't know why, or how, but it means that he is or you are the guy,the man, you're the one. So I would like to say to Stephen that he is " Akhou ekhtou " you're the brother of your sister, you're the MAN.
Let's think of it for a moment, the idea that us humans; for all times since the spontaneous creation, we, never really stopped hating or killing each other, daily, mostly for heavens sake.
The article by J.R. was on MS NBC site yesterday, the final conclusions are mine, thanks for listening and salamat.
By John Rouch
Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of heaven a "fairy story" in an interview with the Guardian newspaper published yesterday.
The physicist, 69, who was diagnosed with A.L.S. at age 21, made the heaven comment in response to a question about his fears of death. "I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he told the news paper.
I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when it's components fail. There is no heaven of after life for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark.
The comments are seen as going beyond those in his 2010 book "the grand design," which stirred up passions with the observation that science can explain the universe's origin without invoking God.
Hawking has far outlived most people who have A.L.S., also known as Lou Gehrig's decease, producing important cosmological research and writing books. His " A brief history of time," published in 1988, has sold more than 9 million copies.
The Guardian interview is the latest the scientist has given to news media in recent weeks. It is published the day before he is scheduled to address the question " Why are we here?" at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London.
In the talk , according to the Guardian, he will argue that the tiny fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged.
" Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.
In Arabic there's an expression that goes by " AKHOU EKHTOU." Meaning literally, the brother of his sister, or brother of your sister, I don't know why, or how, but it means that he is or you are the guy,the man, you're the one. So I would like to say to Stephen that he is " Akhou ekhtou " you're the brother of your sister, you're the MAN.
Let's think of it for a moment, the idea that us humans; for all times since the spontaneous creation, we, never really stopped hating or killing each other, daily, mostly for heavens sake.
The article by J.R. was on MS NBC site yesterday, the final conclusions are mine, thanks for listening and salamat.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
How To Post Comments to My Blog
I adjusted my blog settings so that you no longer need to have an account (e.g., gmail) to login, rather, you can select "Name/URL" when asked for a profile and just type in your comment in the text box (no need to provide a URL, just your name).
Actually don't believe it's me who did that, in fact it was my genius better half Nada who keep saving me and my work from tech ignorance on the Internet, hope to hear more of your ideas or comments now that it's easier to publish in the comments box, salamat.
Actually don't believe it's me who did that, in fact it was my genius better half Nada who keep saving me and my work from tech ignorance on the Internet, hope to hear more of your ideas or comments now that it's easier to publish in the comments box, salamat.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
GOOD OLD OUSSAMA !!!
In one of his statements some years ago, Bin Laden spoke of "the humiliation and shame which the Muslims have suffered for more than 80 years," this sent Middle-east experts and many others looking for explanations , some explanations were offered, most of them totally inaccurate.
He was referring with no doubt to the end of World War I, and the final defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the last, the most enduring and, in many ways, the greatest of the Muslim states and empires. For Oussama Bin Laden and those who thought like him, this was the low point, the final defeat, it was indeed, in his perspective, a moment of humiliation, of bitterness, of defeat.
It is , in a very real sense, the turning point, the beginning of a new era. The struggle between Islam and Christendom had been going on for considerably more than a millennium. One can trace it through its various stages of crusade and jihad, attack and counter attack, conquest and re-conquest through the centuries but ending in what seemed in 1918 to be the final and total defeat of Islam. This sense of history, this awareness of the larger historical perspective is essential for the understanding of what he and his like say and how those to whom they say it respond.
The question that one must ask, is why is it that this man evoked so tremendous a response all over the Muslim world and beyond? what was his appeal ? I think one may give three answers to this, all of which are relevant.
The first is his eloquence. Eloquence has always been a quality greatly admired in traditional Arab culture. His depth, breadth and force of eloquence, moved crowds. This is part of the tradition, a quality much appreciated, greatly admired, but in recent history rarely practised. The form of government prevailing in most Arab countries at the present time relies on force, not persuasion, to secure loyalty and obedience. there is also the fact that most of the rulers now come from the military, a profession of many merits, of which eloquence is not normally one. Oussama bin Laden's command of the Arabic language was truly remarkable, he used it forcefully and very effectively and that won him admiration from many of those who listened to him.
The second was his lifestyle. In the modern Middle Eastern world, the normal pattern is rags to riches, usually by the exercise of force, with the riches then being shared with other members of one's family, one's solidarity group. There is corruption in every civilisation, but corruption takes different forms and levels in the Middle East. In western societies corruption takes this form; you make your money in the market-place, through economic activity, and then you use that money to buy power or, at least, to buy access or influence. The Middle Eastern pattern is the exact opposite; you seize power, and you use the power to make money. Morally, I can see no difference between them. This makes the case for Bin Laden even more dramatic. Here is a man who was born to riches and comfort and chose a life of hardship, danger and humility. One cannot, fail to see the appeal that this would have in those societies.
Third, and perhaps most important of all, is the message that he brought. I would describe it as rejection. He is rejecting not so much western power, as domination, though it is often presented that way. No, it is not so much against power as, rather, against influence; western ways, western ideas, western notions, western practices which have become dominant. And it is, therefore, against the "westernizers" rather than against the westerners, that the main anger was directed. He was against the whole notion of westernisation, which he saw as a form of apostasy, an abandonment of authentic Islam in favour of adopting alien and infidel ways. And for him and those who agreed with him, most of the rulers of the Muslim world are no longer Muslims, though they pretend to be. They are renegades or apostates.
The second element of his message, was the feeling he tried to portray that the tide has turned, that the west has become weak, the west is in retreat, and that it is now their great opportunity to reassert themselves and win victory. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union ,was to Oussama bin Laden and his followers the greatest of victories, the west tend to think of this as a victory for the free world over the Soviet Union, ending the cold war. That is not how he saw it, in his perception this was a victory of Muslims over infidels. They drove the red army in defeat out of Afghanistan, back home to defeat and collapse. One must agree that this explanation is certainly not lacking in plausibility. this was certainly the immediate cause, at the very least. This gave them the feeling, and it reflected in their statements and actions that; there were two great infidel superpowers, we have defeated one- the more difficult, the more dangerous, the more deadly, the more vicious. Dealing with the other will be comparatively easy.
This is related to a certain perception of the western world in general and of the United States in particular which was constantly reiterated and expressed in many of his messages, hit them and they will run, these can only have strengthened the perception that they were dealing with a soft, pampered, defeated enemy.
If you look at the accusations against the United States over the last few months all over the Middle East and, more particularly, the charges of American imperialism, if you look into the details, you will see that what they are complaining about is not American imperialism but the LACK of American imperialism. They are complaining that the United States is failing to fulfill its imperial duties as the greatest power of the world, with a duty to solve disputes, adjudicate between rival peoples and between peoples and their self imposed regimes.
There was a widespread belief in the Middle East that freedom and independence were two different words for the same thing. In recent times the people have discovered painfully that they are not two different words for the same thing, they are two different things. The ending of imperial domination and the establishment of independent national regimes all too often meant the replacement of foreign overlords by domestic tyrants, more adept and more intimate and less constrained in their tyranny.
Inspired, Compiled and arranged by me from excerpts from a lecture by professor B. Lewis around the beginnings of this century at the university of Toronto, again thanks and salamat.
He was referring with no doubt to the end of World War I, and the final defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the last, the most enduring and, in many ways, the greatest of the Muslim states and empires. For Oussama Bin Laden and those who thought like him, this was the low point, the final defeat, it was indeed, in his perspective, a moment of humiliation, of bitterness, of defeat.
It is , in a very real sense, the turning point, the beginning of a new era. The struggle between Islam and Christendom had been going on for considerably more than a millennium. One can trace it through its various stages of crusade and jihad, attack and counter attack, conquest and re-conquest through the centuries but ending in what seemed in 1918 to be the final and total defeat of Islam. This sense of history, this awareness of the larger historical perspective is essential for the understanding of what he and his like say and how those to whom they say it respond.
The question that one must ask, is why is it that this man evoked so tremendous a response all over the Muslim world and beyond? what was his appeal ? I think one may give three answers to this, all of which are relevant.
The first is his eloquence. Eloquence has always been a quality greatly admired in traditional Arab culture. His depth, breadth and force of eloquence, moved crowds. This is part of the tradition, a quality much appreciated, greatly admired, but in recent history rarely practised. The form of government prevailing in most Arab countries at the present time relies on force, not persuasion, to secure loyalty and obedience. there is also the fact that most of the rulers now come from the military, a profession of many merits, of which eloquence is not normally one. Oussama bin Laden's command of the Arabic language was truly remarkable, he used it forcefully and very effectively and that won him admiration from many of those who listened to him.
The second was his lifestyle. In the modern Middle Eastern world, the normal pattern is rags to riches, usually by the exercise of force, with the riches then being shared with other members of one's family, one's solidarity group. There is corruption in every civilisation, but corruption takes different forms and levels in the Middle East. In western societies corruption takes this form; you make your money in the market-place, through economic activity, and then you use that money to buy power or, at least, to buy access or influence. The Middle Eastern pattern is the exact opposite; you seize power, and you use the power to make money. Morally, I can see no difference between them. This makes the case for Bin Laden even more dramatic. Here is a man who was born to riches and comfort and chose a life of hardship, danger and humility. One cannot, fail to see the appeal that this would have in those societies.
Third, and perhaps most important of all, is the message that he brought. I would describe it as rejection. He is rejecting not so much western power, as domination, though it is often presented that way. No, it is not so much against power as, rather, against influence; western ways, western ideas, western notions, western practices which have become dominant. And it is, therefore, against the "westernizers" rather than against the westerners, that the main anger was directed. He was against the whole notion of westernisation, which he saw as a form of apostasy, an abandonment of authentic Islam in favour of adopting alien and infidel ways. And for him and those who agreed with him, most of the rulers of the Muslim world are no longer Muslims, though they pretend to be. They are renegades or apostates.
The second element of his message, was the feeling he tried to portray that the tide has turned, that the west has become weak, the west is in retreat, and that it is now their great opportunity to reassert themselves and win victory. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union ,was to Oussama bin Laden and his followers the greatest of victories, the west tend to think of this as a victory for the free world over the Soviet Union, ending the cold war. That is not how he saw it, in his perception this was a victory of Muslims over infidels. They drove the red army in defeat out of Afghanistan, back home to defeat and collapse. One must agree that this explanation is certainly not lacking in plausibility. this was certainly the immediate cause, at the very least. This gave them the feeling, and it reflected in their statements and actions that; there were two great infidel superpowers, we have defeated one- the more difficult, the more dangerous, the more deadly, the more vicious. Dealing with the other will be comparatively easy.
This is related to a certain perception of the western world in general and of the United States in particular which was constantly reiterated and expressed in many of his messages, hit them and they will run, these can only have strengthened the perception that they were dealing with a soft, pampered, defeated enemy.
If you look at the accusations against the United States over the last few months all over the Middle East and, more particularly, the charges of American imperialism, if you look into the details, you will see that what they are complaining about is not American imperialism but the LACK of American imperialism. They are complaining that the United States is failing to fulfill its imperial duties as the greatest power of the world, with a duty to solve disputes, adjudicate between rival peoples and between peoples and their self imposed regimes.
There was a widespread belief in the Middle East that freedom and independence were two different words for the same thing. In recent times the people have discovered painfully that they are not two different words for the same thing, they are two different things. The ending of imperial domination and the establishment of independent national regimes all too often meant the replacement of foreign overlords by domestic tyrants, more adept and more intimate and less constrained in their tyranny.
Inspired, Compiled and arranged by me from excerpts from a lecture by professor B. Lewis around the beginnings of this century at the university of Toronto, again thanks and salamat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)