Thus spoke (again) Nasrallah

To commemorate the martyrdom of the Islamic resistance's "Sayed martyr" Abbas al-Mousawi and its "Sheikh martyr" Ragheb Harb, Hizbullah held a "celebration" in the southern suburb of occupied Beirut.
After being told that "we live in a country that forgets its great martyrs" and where "agents turn into national symbols", Nasrallah tried to give his "Islamic resistance" a "Lebanese national dimension" by claiming a link to Moussa As Sadr, who, we are told, planted the seeds of this resistance in the 1960s. With this, Nasrallah desperately tries to respond to his critics who constantly argue that Sadr would not have sold the country to Iran. He also tries to justify his actions by comparing them to Sadr's mobilization of the Shias against government neglect.

And then we learn that the "resistance" acquired the right to own and transport weapons from religions, divine laws, and the history of humanity and human societies. For that, the weapons that the army confiscated are "usurped" even if taken to the south. Matters like weapon smuggling and waging wars fall under the sole and divine jurisdiction of Hizbullah.

When an Israeli newspaper claimed French reconnaissance planes were flying over Lebanese territories, violating Hizbullah's wishes, Nasrallah's people called "some of the countries" directly and settled what turned out to be a lie. 

This is all part of plot to create tension between Hizbullah and UNIFIL. The conspirators include those predicting attacks on UNIFIL. They want to create tension between UNIFIL and Hizbullah like they are trying to create tension between the Lebanese army and Hizbullah (god forbid should there be "tension" between an illegal militia and a legitimate army).

See, Hizbullah has given "guarantees". They will not harm UNIFIL. In other words, UNIFIL is protected by Hizbullah, which is so influential, Nasrallah says, that whenever Nasrallah's people have remarks on its performance, they call the concerned states directly and "so far the states have been responsive … because sometimes some of the UNIFIL soldiers have been recruited by Israel and the concerned country does not bear responsibility for the action of this soldier or that officer, and when we turn their attention to the matter, it gets resolved".

It is sobering for those who believe the myth that the Lebanese state has extended its authority over Hizbullah land to listen to Nasrallah speak as the lord of a mini state with its own foreign affairs department that UNIFIL countries apparently contact directly and depend on for their security. I will be waiting for UNIFIL to deny such an intimate relationship with Hizbullah.

Turning to the affairs of Hizbullah's northern border, i.e. the annexed part of downtown Beirut, Nasrallah accused "some" in March 14 (February 14 to him) of working against a resolution to the standoff between his "party" and the government, which he considers illegitimate because it dares question his authority. After blaming the US ambassador for wrecking the "positive atmosphere" of the last couple of weeks, he rejected multilateral dialogue, but welcomed bilateral talks between any one in the "other" camp and anyone in the "opposition" except Hizbullah. Why? Because Nasrallah says he wants to prove that Hizbullah is not the entire opposition. He said bilateral talks could create an opening or bring views together.

How do you get away with accusing others of desiring conflict when you don't even want to be part of the resolution? You pretend you're god-sent and convince your followers you're also the embodiment of every martyr in history, beginning with Abel and ending with the martyrs Nasrallah was allegedly commemorating yesterday. Or you tell them they're invincible and omnipresent—mini-gods who are "capable of being present in all squares at the same time, and available for Jihad in any domain." And for those unimpressed with humanity's salvation history, you point them in the direction of Palestine.

Nasrallah is a monster, and unfortunately, Lebanon and this region are fertile grounds for monsters like him. Not only did he, in one speech, conflate Lebanon with Palestine, southern Lebanon with the occupied territories, Beirut with Jerusalem, and Israel with March 14—he also got away with it. And he will always get away with it, as long as there is a system that allows him to be the lion and the persecuted at the same time.

Solution? Evolution needs to be inflicted on this region that bred people like him and the ones who worship him.

Don't ask me how. I don't know.

Comments

[Bad Vilbel]

I'll tell you how. Nasrallah and other monsters like him need to be squashed like the parasites and vermin they are. There is no negotiating or compromising with people like that.

[Jeha]

Nasrallah, by accelerating his vociferations, took the bait that Geagea and Joumblat threw this week. His comments that "agents turn into national symbols" will be interepreted by Sunnis as an attack on Rafic Hariri.

Not only is he busy painting himself into a corner, but now he added a nice cover of varnish.

That guy is not a monster; he is a stupid Iranian puppet who's dragging all of us to our doom.

[Outsider]

Abu Kais, you wrote:
"Nasrallah is a monster, and unfortunately, Lebanon and this region are fertile grounds for monsters like him. (...) Evolution needs to be inflicted on this region that bred people like him and the ones who worship him."

Actually I have a question that I had wanted to post here earlier already.
I have been wondering: why is it that almost all Arab countries, from Morocco to Iraq, are either dictatorships or engaged in civil war? Please don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Arabs, rather the opposite, I like to travel through the Arab world and I am even trying to learn Arabic. But it hurts me to see that there is hardly any Arab state that is functioning properly. Of course there are some 'mild' dictatorships, such as Tunisia and Jordan, and others are moving in a positive direction, e.g. Morocco, but still they are dictatorships.

Does it have to do with the education system? With the lack of free press and the abundance of propoganda? (but then again: why is there so much propoganda, why do people believe that, aren't they hungry for real information?). Does it have to do with lack of trust between people? With loyalty to clans / religious groups above loyalty to the state?
Perhaps a related question is: why are the people in this region so vulnerable to conspiracy theories?

I would be really interested in your thoughts on this subject, Abu Kais, as well as others who might be reading this. I have a feeling the answer is the key to progress in the region.

[Randall]

As an ignorant American who has never been to the Middle East, I'd like to take a crack at suggesting a provisional and tentative starting point for thinking about a possible answer to the question posed above.

I suspect that the problems of the Middle East are related to the culture of the Middle East, which goes back a long, long, LOOOONG time, and which was, in its infancy, shaped and honed by a pitiless environment in which the sorts of things the "Western World" prides itself on (or once did, when it was proud) - Objectivity, Compromize, Abstract Principles, 'Blind' Justice, Disinterested Rationality, Human Rights, Freedom, etc... - got pounded down in short order.

This cultural tatoo still stains the landscape on which it was imprinted, but those who leave and set up shop in other places seem to do at least as well as the natives.

[buckeye]

randall,
you oversimplify things in the region. the fact that you are "ignorant" of the middle east makes it hard to come up with a solution. even those that are familiar with the middle east are at a loss for a solution. it is not as easy as you make them out to be, and as a resident of the west, you are giving way too much credit to the west recently as well. the u.s. is not what it once was, and the forfathers of this country are rolling in their graves.

[Bad Vilbel]

It might have a thing or two to do with the fact that all these countries were artificially created and delineated by colonial powers and slapped together with duct tape, so to speak, while being made up of diverse, and often enemy religious and ethnic groups.

[Randall]

Buckeye,

If knowledgeable people cannot figure out a solution, shouldn't they at least give the ignorants a listen? The ignorants may see the forest in a way that the trees can't.

To suggest that I am oversimplifying is a gross oversimplification. My analysis has a long way to go before it merely simplistic.

Just how much credit The West deserves for fill-in-the-blank is debatable (as is everything...). Personally, I think The West gets too little credit for its contribution to world history. The West played a significant part in cultivating and spreading democracy, science, and the very concepts of human rights and social justice that it is so often accused of denying other people.

Since the founding fathers birthed the U.S., slavery has been abolished, women have gotten the vote, The concept of Manifest Destiny has become an object of scorn, child labor has been outlawed, homosexuality has become an acceptable lifestyle, not to mention topic of entertainment, blacks have become prominent politicians at all levels, women have access to a vastly wider variety of opportunities, a much higher percentage of the population can get a college education.

Thomas Jefferson sincerely believed blacks were inferior to whites, although not deserving of the slavery he intended to save them from some day when he was done putting the finishing touches on Montecello and siring offspring by them.

Lincoln did as well (He's kind of a founding father emeritus).

Some aspects of America would dismay them, others please them.

Be that as it may, all I am saying, is give cultural explanations for the problems of the Middle East a chance. I think such an approach could provide plausible explanations for why the Middle East, among other things, is a place where democracy is widely considered untenable, where academic standards are low, religious extremism prevalant, and non-oil-based economic prosperity rare.

[Outsider]

Randall, can you (or anyone else in this comments section) be more precise (i.e. which aspects of the culture are to blame) and also give hints as to how culture may be transformed? Right now your analysis is very depressing: if the current situation is largely a result of a culture that has been shaped through centuries of experience, then how can the current situation ever be changed? And saying that someones entire culture is wrong puts people in the defensive (and it is not fair either, because there are other things we as Westerners could learn from the Arab world). Therefore if you (or anyone else) could be more precise and also offer ways out, that would be appreciated, at least by me.
You added an aspect I didn't mention in my original post, namely the lack of "creative industry" - but Lebanon is certainly an exception to that rule!

[Randall]

I am not, I repeat NOT, claiming any sort of expertise here. I just would like to see culture be a serious chunk of this conversation.

Public discussions of this area invariably obsess on:

1) Colonialism (Spain, by the way, has its own experience with colonialism, which Spaniards have moved beyond, and the recognition of which is becoming discouraged if not outright illegal because it cannot be carried out without offending the descendents of the colonizers, but that's another story altoger, so no need to get into that...)

2) Zionism

3) The Great Satan

4) Islam's failures

5) The failure of Muslims to uphold the true faith

6) The fall of the Ottoman Empire

...

"Blaming" culture is just meant to suggest that we think about how cultures develop, and what sorts of attitudes, beliefs, and behavior they reward/punish, and think about whether or not the cultures that developed in the Middle East, which may have been highly effective at one time, are now - to some degree - liabilities. Anyone who says this sort of thing about The West gets to be a college professor on the spot, with tenure and teaching assistants to do all the heavy lifting. But when you suggest that certain, non-Western individuals might not be making the best decisions all the time, or may be influenced by a dysfunctional culture, then it will be much harder to become a college professor. You may even have to get a legitimate degree in something.

I don't know how cultures change. I just know that some do. I spent two years in Japan in the early 90's. There's a culture that knows how to change (for good and ill).

In fact, the very willingness to change may be cultural. The Middle East seems to be unusually reactionary and obsessed with the past.

We Americans are constantly told how terrible we are and insensitive, not to mention stupid, fat, vulgar, loud, etc....

Fair enough. But other parts of the world have problems that cannot be dealt with without the same sort of self-criticism Americans supposedly don't have enough of.

[Amir in Tel Aviv]

I agree with Bad Vilbel:
"...It might have a thing or two to do with the fact that all these countries were artificially created and delineated by colonial powers and slapped together with duct tape, so to speak, while being made up of diverse, and often enemy religious and ethnic groups".

Peoples and nations can develop only in an environment that encourages development. The artificial creation of states, with no real base (ethnic, religious, cultural) makes the people worry about the day of tomorrow, instead of thinking about the future, like a healthy nation.
the blame falls on the imperial superpowers of the time of the creation: France, Britain; and some blame on Russia and the US (mainly on president W. Wilson, who didn't insist on the post WW1 principles, he himself coined).
The solution, as I see it, is re-drawing the borders all over the ME.
This will be bloody, but necessary.
.

[ghassan karam]

Megalomania breeds "monsters" especially in the political field. The Lebanon and the Arab world seem to offer fertile ground for these pretenders as the masses have failed to "evolve" and to adopt the most basic elements of critical thinking and introspection. We have failed to evolve into modern responsible citizens and are happy to follow pied pipers over the abyss.

But AK raises an interesting point when he declares that "evolution needs to be inflicted on this region in order to rid..." AK has made over the past couple of years many references to Darwin, I suspect that he is a Darwin scholar of some sort and so I raise the following issue as an "amateur":=) There is nothing in Darwin and his scheme of natural selection that will guarantee the evolution of the specie. I guess that what I am saying is that we might have chosen NOT to adapt, to allow megalomanic monosters to lead. We have sealed our , we will not evolve because we cannot adapt, we have become an endangeres specie whose extinction will not be missed.

Coercive measures by government could have forced evolution by forcing adaptation but that requires a group of visionary leaders whose goal is not only survival at any cost. If we are willing to sell our souls for thirty of silver then we are not going to gain anything. Unfortunately that is where we are in Lebanon. We need someone to show the way out of the unacceptable choices that our traditional pols have created and all what we get to fight the evil and "monstee" of HA is a Saniora et al.; a bunch of incompetent, visionlessbut well meaning pols. We ought to remember that the road to hell is paved with good intensions.

As long as we refuse to take Diogenes's answer when asked what country he belongs to: "I am a citizen of the world" or even Lennons song "Imagine all the people sharing all the world" then I am afraid that there is no place for us in this world. We will continue to be out of step with the world because we refuse to adapt to it, we want the world to adapt to us, and that is an impossibility.

[Randall]

OK, let's redraw the borders.

Anyone have a map showing the borders that will pacify the Middle East?

[Bad Vilbel]

Amir, I disagree.

I said the artificial creation of states was one of the CAUSES of where we are today. That doesn't mean the solution is in partitioning the area differently.

I think there are plenty of examples of countries that get by fine with a diverse, multi-ethnic population in today's day and age.
What's required is for people to "grow up", so to speak, and evolve beyond their tribal and ethnic loyalties. The middle east hasn't had a chance to mature yet (in comparative terms, it's a very young set of countries, most being only 60 years old). If you think about it that way, that's one person's lifespan (or shorter). You generally need a couple of generations of people coexisting in peace for this maturity to develop.

Keyword here being "in peace". I firmly believe (and I may be in the minority here) that peace has to come FIRST, and the people will follow. In other words, peace has to be imposed (and the 60,000 dollar question is "HOW?") and these folks will learn to tolerate each other once they don't have to worry about being shot at or blown up every day.

If muslims, jews, and christians; Arabs, Israelis, Chinese and Germans can all co-exist in places like Canada, or the US, then I am convinced that there is no real reason they can't do that elsewhere. There is no INHERENT reason for these folks to fight each other. They are not born with some "hatred" gene. This mess is more about circumstances and environmental causes and can thus be fixed by modifying the environment these folks live in.

*steps down from soapbox*

[Jeha]

BV,

There may be one "INHERENT reason for these folks to fight each other"; the dearth of resources, and no effective system to share them. This applies within countries like Lebanon, or across borders...

[IMB]

I love it when you mention "occupied" Beirut. At long last you said it. The truth is that Lebanon has been occupied for a long time not only by Syria but also by Iranian thugs...

[ghassan karam]

BV
"If muslims, jews, and christians; Arabs, Israelis, Chinese and Germans can all co-exist in places like Canada, or the US, then I am convinced that there is no real reason they can't do that elsewhere. There is no INHERENT reason for these folks to fight each other. They are not born with some "hatred" gene. This mess is more about circumstances and environmental causes and can thus be fixed by modifying the environment these folks live in."

The answer to your query is straight forward and simple. What differentiates the Arab world from say the EU, North America or Japan is the political system. Systems are a reflection of values and ideas that people hold dear. The difference can be summarised by saying its the culture. Change the culture and the ideas on which the system is built and not only the superficial hollow structure that many of us in the Middle East mistake for the real thing. Change hearts, beliefsand ideas and you will get a newand different system. But if we insist on keeping our traditional loyalties and socis economic structures intact then try as hard as you may by creating parliaments, holding elections... the system as we know it aill persist in its corruption, tribalism and authoritarianism.

BV, don't bemoan the failure of nation states. They are , as Madison avenue would put it, your Dads world. The Treaty of Westphalia,1648, was useful as it lasted. But it has outlived its usefulness and the3 sooner we recognize that the better off we would be. In the words of Peter Singer, the celebrated consequentialist," The twenty first century faces the task of developing a suitable form of government for the single world (that we were able to see for the first time during the twentieth century as a result of conquest of space). It is a daunting moral and intellectual challenge, but one we cannot refuse to take up. The future of the world depends on how well we meet it".

It is becoming increasingly a borderless world, a world where artificial political boundaries are not very significant. The world is for all of us and those that keep rejecting the other on nationalistic, patriotistic or religious grounds will not survive because they will not be able to adapt.

[Charlie]

Amir,

In an Era of Global integration and economical co-dependency do you really think redrawing the borders is the way to go?? The way these conflicts are shaped now, you will end up with several mini-states that still have to find a way to work with each other.

[Abu Kais]

Ghassan--

I am not a Darwin scholar, but I'm afraid I may have used the term "Evolution" loosely. First the caveat that socio-biology is still in its infancy, and our applying evolutionary biology to the Lebanese or Middle Eastern model may be regarded as heretic.

Having said that, evolution is certainly not progressive, nor is it linear, and as you said, there are no guarantees you wouldn't end up an extinct variety if you failed to adapt to changing circumstances. Whether or not the actions of this part of the world will lead to its extinction is up for debate. But within the closed environment that reactionaries such as Nasrallah operate, it's feared that they may end up weeding us out in their attempt to adapt the environment to their needs rather than adapt to the environment that is Lebanon. The self-sufficiency of this group had allowed it to maintain a greenhouse of sorts producing individuals adapted to the art of war and suicide. The July war changed some of the factors, and UNSC 1701 forced them to farm people in a more exposed environment. That is why they're attempting to change the entire country to suit them, rather than adapt to the new environment.

That is why it's either them, or Lebanon.

In my post, I should not have said "inflicting evolution", for it presumes that evolution progresses along my own taste-- which is admittedly modern, secular and I guess western. I should have said "change", which could result from evolution, if we know how to tweak the factors to give an advantage to those with a more "progressive" vision.

How do we do that? That's what the readers above are essentially discussing. All I can say is that economic integration, regional cooperation and rule of law are the way to go. Fundamentalism and living in the past aren't. Instilling these concepts in people is the hardest part, and may take a few generations, and sadly, maybe even a forced major extinction.

[Kody]

All very interesting points that are made here!

The main problems as i see them is the lack of good acessible education in the middle east, the lack of opportunities for individuals to climb the social and economic ladder ( social and economic aspiration) are the main impedidements to solving the problems. Dumb down a population and make its life hard and only think about living day to day, and take away their ability to think and the society becomes easier to control through coercion and brutality, this is the middle east.

And then you have the corrupt Bastards in control who tightly manage the economies in the hands of their cronies and families, and this is a consequence of the ottomon rule, and later British and french control.

The only salvationn for some as we have chosen is to emigrate to escape.

[Vulcan]

The fact that cannot be ignored here is Islam and the interpretation of Islam by corrupt ignorant and backward Mullahs, Muftis and sheikhs and its effect on the millions of blind followers. In my humble opinion the Middle East is being torn between western democratic values, the dictatorial regimes and the medieval culture that is being enforced by the Muslim extremists. The only cure is to defeat Islamic fundamentalism.
Check out this latest article in Ynet. It would be nice to read some of your comments on it.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3366241,00.html

[Solomon2]

he will always get away with it, as long as there is a system that allows him to be the lion and the persecuted at the same time. Solution?...Don't ask me how. I don't know.

Eh? Didn't Nasrallah just tell you how to do that? Do the exact opposite of what he says: have the Lebanese government negotiate with Hezbollah directly, but not with him or the top leadership. Go from village to village if necessary to offer deals to assure security and loyalty to the government in exchange for rejecting Iran's influence.

[Amir in Tel Aviv]

Charlie,

"..The way these conflicts are shaped now, you will end up with several mini-states that still have to find a way to work with each other".
Exactly.! This is what I mean.
May be "mini-statelets" will start to think about constructive issues, and down to earth attitude will emerge.

ghassan and AK,
A one government for one world is nice Utopia. But before that, you have to feed the starving child in Africa (20,000 dead children a day there).
You cannot make an egg from omelet (as Shimon Peres says), or build the house starting from the roof.

"Socio-biology is still in its infancy" AK rightly says.
This phenomenon of neo-Jihad could too be explained in terms of socio-biology. The human mind and ideas are speeding, while our bodies are of this ape, who fights for food and territory. So before planning the global "imposed peace" (BV), and world government(GK), we have to admit that we are still not far (evolutionary speaking) from Chimps and gorillas. First we have to provide the basic needs of the ape in us.
.

[Zvi]

Solomon2, that isn't likely to work.

Hizballah has too much influence over those villages, for economic reasons, through intimidation and through peer pressure.

Breaking their economic grip would help, but count on Hizballah to use every means, including violence, to prevent that from happening.

[Outsider]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my question. I have made a summary of all potential causes that have been brought up by you so far:

A) culture, especially:
1- lack of self criticism
2- unwillingness to change, obsession with the past
3- "hearts, beliefs and ideas" need to be changed so that corruption and tribalism are banned
4- Islam and radical / fundamentalist interpretations of Islam

B) colonial history & artificial borders
1- makes people, who have no common history or objective, fear each other
2- "immaturity" of nations --> this is a phase nations can grow out of, but it requires a leadership that "imposes" peace, in order to create a 'fertile' environment for development

C) lack of vision with the leadership, incompetent leadership, corrupt leadership

D) socio-economic factors
1- scarcity of natural resources and no effective system to share them
2- economic integration, regional cooperation and rule of law are needed
3- lack of good accessible education (not developing the ability to think)
4- lack of opportunities for individuals to climb the social and economic ladder

Personally I think there is quite some truth in all of them, except scarcity of natural resources. Agriculture, tourism, oil, industry, potentially it is all possible. That's no good excuse in my opinion.

Perhaps some more aspects should be added to this list?
And if you were in a position to bring about change in one of these aspects, which would you choose and how would you start?

[Jeha]

Outsider,

in the context of the region, there is indeed a lot of "scarcity of natural resources"; those settlements are not settled for purely biblical reasons, and the enduring poverty in the beqaa suits Syria eminently... There are many examples of that, and when you combine it with the region;s administrative mess, you get the wonders.

[Don Cox]

"There may be one "INHERENT reason for these folks to fight each other"; the dearth of resources"

The primary resource of any region is the people in it. With the right skills, the people in the Middle East can develop desalination plants, solar power, sophisticated irrigation; arts, music and film; mathematics and scientific research; medicine; and everything else needed for a peaceful and prosperous society.

Those skills will come with good education (which includes learning how to question what you are taught) and free, open discussion of all topics.

Fortunately, dictators can sometimes be conned into providing better education than they intend. Literacy is the key.

[JoseyWales]

AKconflate Lebanon with Palestine,

Don't ask me how. I don't know.

Don't know either AK, but I do know this: for the Lebanese (and non-Palestinians), step ONE has got to START with the statement:

Israel/Palestine is NOT my number one problem.

The converse of that statement is the sick tenet that allows Syria/Iran etc to meddle in Lebanon. It is the excuse that every thug uses to get his way. It's how the guy who murders his own mother gets off the hook. It's how the idiot Lebanese gvmnts get cowed into not doing their duty every time.

Barring this initial negation/step, you can all forget about any solution on the horizon.

[ghassan karam]

The latest issue of the New Yorker has a lengthy story by Charles Glass about the Lebanese war in general with a special emphasis on Jumblatt. The article is worth reading because it presents at points a view of the Lebanese struggle through the more neutral eyes of an outside observer who is in a better position to see the forest from the trees.

Two facts that I learned from this essay (1) Jumblatt estimates the value of weapons and training that his militia received from the ex Soviet Union to be at least $500 million. I had no clue that the Soviet involvement was that large.
(2) Jumblatt hints to the fact that he does not envy his son the leadership role that he will eventually inherit. That was very disappointing; feudalism is alive and well in the world. It resides in Lebanon!!!

[rm]

Actually, his son is married to a shia!

[Michael J. Totten]

Here is an interesting map.

[Jeha]

Don Cox,

I agree that Literacy is important, but it is not enough. You will find many brilliant people with Hezb; extremely literate, but extremely fanatical.

I feel that it goes deeper; you need a system for the smart ones to emerge regardless of sect, all the while giving a space for the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Fallwell of this world to spend their energy and money and (hopefully) be ridiculed at minimal expense of blood...

[Maya]

Mike,

Your map link did not work. Can you kindly repost it?

Outsider,

I used to think that the biggest problem of the Middle East was the post colonial partition that took place after the fall of the Ottoman Empire which lumped people together with little regard to their ethnicity and religion. I changed my mind when I moved to the US and saw a secular democratic "melting pot" in action. I am convinced that the biggest problem is the limitation imposed on our minds because of Islam. No offense to anybody who does not share my belief, but I grew up in a Muslim household myself, so I am not trying to insult anyone's faith. Islam does not encourage free thinking. Unlike other religions, it is equipped with its own legal and political system. It is patriarchal and prevents any individualistic thinking. When you get your political views shaped in the mosque, you will have Mullahs capable of generating street mobs after a Friday sermon. This happens in Lebanon, but also in Pakistan, India, Indonesia, and even Bosnia. Different ethnicities, but same religion. I think this is the core problem in the Middle East and as long as the Mullahs and Sheikhs are in charge of shaping the political minds of the youth, we will never have a chance. Religion should be a personal relationship between a human being and his maker, not a political identity. People in the Middle East are discouraged from thinking for themselves, but are spoon fed propaganda, conspiracy theries and God's orders by their Mullahs on a daily basis. Anyway, that's my humble opinion, at least.

[Jeha]

Maya,

I think ALL religions can be limiting; it happens whenever "blind faith" in the value of "arbitrary" rules kicks in, and replaces simple logic and deduction based on facts.

The irony is that Europeans once were similar to People in the Middle East, and were no different from Hindu fanatics who used to insist on having wives burn with their dead husbands... They wised up after the renaissance, and after St. Thomas reconciled the church with the challenge posed by Aristotle and Ibn Rushd (a fact the pope incidentally forgot to mention in his famous speech). To the risk of sounding "pedant", the challenge was simple; the main idea is that logic should prevail over any blind faith in "ultimate" truth, without comitting Galilleo's mistake of assuming that logic and deduction alone can help us understand "ultimate" truth, if there is such a thing.

In a similar manner, someone will come along to reconcile Islam (again) with Aristotle and Ibn Rushd. Come to think of it; little was really added to Aristotle since those guys. The guy who wrote that "7 habits" best seller might as well have copied him...

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Except now, we got nukes.

[ghassan karam]

Jeha,
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive"
Einstein

[Charlie]

Maya,

I don’t think it is just an issue with Islam alone. It is more of an issue of interpretation of a religion and how literal one is going to take the words in the holly book (s). Europe went through the same phase during the Middle Ages when people were totally controlled by the Church. Also during that same period the Muslim world was at its peak and making great advances in science, medicine and mathematics. Remember Ibin Sina’s contribution to medicine and Al-Khawarizmi’s contributions in Algebra and astronomy.

One difference you may see between the Muslim world of that era and today’s Middle East is in the level of tolerance and the ability to absorb and integrate other cultures. In my opinion civilizations that excel and advance are the ones that find a way to allow other cultures to get integrated into it and provide them the means to contribute to the over all system. I think you may see that was the case with the Greeks, Romans, and Muslims empire (Mideast, East Asia and Spain) of the past, while today it can be seen in the USA. The old Islamic dynasties were able to absorb in addition to the Arabs: Turks, Persians, Jews, Christians and even the Mongols. So till the people of the Mideast come to grip with pluralism, be more tolerant and find a way to allow all to integrate into their societies, the place is going to be hell to live in. I think it is that realization that drove most of us out to seek new homes elsewhere around the world.

[ghassan karam]

Jeha/Charlie,
I do not intend to get into a detailed philosophical and religious discussion on a political blog but I cannot restrain myself from making one point.
The argument that a group of people, in this case European christians had an ignobale practice hundreds of years ago does not justify the same pracise today. That is an argument that does not wash or as they say in Texas "This dog don't hunt". The fact that we lived in caves, kept slaves and acted as if we could do whatever our hearts desired at one time is in no way to sanction these activities at the moment. Times change, morality changes,ethics evolve and humans are 'wise" because they can learn from previous experiences.Actually there is even a patronizing air about these arguments.

[Jeha]

Ghassan,

I understand "the idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive", but I cannot debate that. As an engineer, I tend to think that it is naive to discuss anything that cannot be measured or evaluated within the current state of our understanding of the world. The existence or lack thereof of a creator is therefore an untestable hypothesis; the search for "ultimate" truth is not the same as the search for a proper "scientific" understanding of the world.

Incidentally, that was the main thread behind "Gallileo's mistake", a great book idea that was ill-served by the author.

As for my commnents, I did not intend to state that "ignobale practice hundreds of years ago" do, in any way, "justify the same pracise today". Give me some credit; my point is that civilizations do not evolve in the sense of "progress", but rather that they change. This can be for good, as in the example of St Thomas that I used, or for bad, as in the case of Ibn Rushd, who is being soundly ignored today in the wider moslem world.

The notion of "progress" or "evolution" can often be misinterpreted to imply "certainty". The fact is just that nations change and adapt in response to a complex set of circumstances, and Neros could just as easily suceed Vespatiens. Our litterature has been rather stagnant, demosntrating that our wisdom has not been progressing as fast as our technical prowess.

I do have a tendency to espress mu ideas "indirectly" (but I am not Jesuit raised), so my comment that "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Except now, we got nukes" is meant to imply that we're basically primates with the power to wipe out the world...

[ghassan karam]

Jeha,
I lied when I said that I was not going to comment on this topic:-) I cannot help myself l0l.
I am afraid that I might look at the question of a personal God differently than you do. (I think that my view is the scientific one :-). The God hypothesis is a scientific one about the universe and as such it needs to be subjected to rigourous tests just as much as any other hypothesis. Once that is done (see Dawkins and Harris) it becomes very clear that the notion of a personal God as promoted by the monotheistic religions is a far cry from the idea of "nature" or any power to which we wish to ascribe creation.
As for "progrss" , I am afraid that we agree and disagree at the same time. I agree with you because in that progress is not like the arrow of time as presented by Turgot on the occasion of the opening of the Sorbonne in 1750? But at the same time I do not think that the regression when it occurs is either meaningful or long lasting. I guess that there is a Chardin in me. Life will be totally meaningless if one is not to believe in the widening of the circle of ethics. I would hope that our circle of ethics will continue to extend until it covers even the cosmos. That is our only hope. Unfortunately some of us are stuck with a circle of ethics that refuses to budge from where it was hundreds of years ago.
To relate all of this back to Lebanon. For one reason or another the World Shiite Conference that took plce on January 20-22 in Qatar went practically unreported in the popular media. During the closing session Sheikh Fadllalah Jr from Lebanon read the meaasge on behalf of his father. The main theme in the message was the real fear that if Islam does not put its house in order then the youth might accept secularism. What a blasphemy, a new generation that wants to separate the sacred from the secular? What would these Mullahs do then? They have to become men of the cloth? To him and all the other Muftis such an outcome is the worst possible one. They would rather keep their stranglehold on their flock through the irrational images of a vengeful God, one who dispensses punishments and rewards based on hateful acts. We need to liberate ourself from such colorful immagery and have the courage to imagine a world with no religion.

[BadVilbel]

Army Commander Michel Suleiman says in today's Nahar that the Army is above sectarian divide (i don't buy it) but that he is against military rule in Lebanon.

Now let me play devil's advocate here for a second. If the army is indeed above sectarianism and is as unified as he claims, then wouldn't it make sense to be FOR military rule? I'd love for the one institution that's NOT sectarian to enforce the rule of law and teach the people, through example, how to rise above sectarianism.

But, as I said above, I don't really buy that the army is as unified as Michel Suleiman claims.

[Outsider]

Thanks again to everyone who commented on my question. I see that the discussion took an interesting turn on philosophy and theology!

By the way, Maya, have you already talked to your friends from the Marjeyoun region or have you already read the book I mentioned? I'd be interested in what you find.