The Nomad and the Olive Branch

I have to admit that I haven't been following much of the news lately. I was talking to one of my friends after a long day of nothing but studying. Suddenly, he mentions Pope Benedict, the current presiding spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and a current speech he gave out. While many have criticized the Pope for his apparent incompetency, I have actually had mixed impressions about him, and I have yet to fully understand his character. The speech in question was made on Tuesday September 12, 2006, in a German university. However, I will focus on some key excerpts from that entire speech. Regarding the concept of Holy War, he said, "I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches

During the early days prior to the unjust invasion of Iraq, much of the public was lead into being convinced that Saddam was a threat and just had to go. The media served to propagate the lies that Bush Jr. and his cronies spewed out in order to justify an impending invasion on the Cradle of Civilization, but now that we're seeing in the clear, we have exposed the lies for what they are whenever they came out, every step of the way. And this is exactly what I am going to do right now. One of the first statements that "justified" the Iraq war was the "threat" that Saddam posed to the West. Many people started thinking about a potential WMD attack on the U.S.A., which is something that they have not done during the previous administration and after the Gulf War, when he had his WMD's ready for bear. Bush succeeded in convincing the American public (supporters, really) that Saddam was a "threat to world peace". He managed to gain more support for thi

As'ad Abu Khalil has recently published this excellent article that highlights the many contradictions in America's so-called "War on Terror", and underscores the aims of what is in reality a war of terror aimed at subverting the globe under political and economical hegemony. In it, he outlines what he indicates as double standards on part of the American government regarding its foreign policy, and how in effect Bush spreads not democracy, but dictatorship and corruption. Bush saw 9-11 as an excuse to sacrifice the liberty and rights of his people in the name of National Security and in "defense" in this "war on terror". This manifested itself in the so-called "Patriot" Act, which should be renamed to the Treason Act, for betraying someone's privacy and freedom in the name of "security" is not at all Patriotic or even (ugh) Nationalistic. However, to Bush's advantage, 9-11 drew out more support for the President at fi

by I. Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. Minaret of Freedom Institute [As submitted to Liberty, printed in a revised form as “The Dark Side of Israel” in v. 15 #4 (April 2001), p.39.] Over a year ago Gideon Levy wrote in a major Israeli newspaper (Levy, G. Ha`aretz 4 April 1999), "The Kosovo tragedy has already taken place [in Palestine] and it could happen again here."Although the murder of eighty unarmed civilians this October have shown Levy's words to be prophetic, you will find no such comments in the mainstream American newspapers. Instead, the victims are blamed.The degree of unconditional pro-Israeli bias in America sometimes surprises even Israel’s most knowledgeable critics.In describing the moves to suppress his book criticizing the excesses of Israeli secret police, Victor Ostrovsky recounts the chilling words of Yosef Lapid, the former head of Israeli television. On a Canadian television program, Lapid announced that, “since Israel's Mossad could not kill me [Ostrovsky]

Liberalism is a popular political movement. It is mainly secular in nature. However, a new breed of liberalism is on the rise that is based on the same good principles of secular liberalism. That breed of liberalism is religious liberalism, and I'm going to tell you more about it. Whenever you think of religion and government at the same time, the only brand that comes to mind is theocracy. You think of nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran. You might also think of the ancient kingdoms ruled by David and then his son, Solomon. Repressive rules come to mind: men and women are probably segregated as much as possible. Gun control is enforced, drugs are regulated (I hate drugs, because of what they do to your body, but regulating medicinal drugs is ridiculous), modes of entertainment are almost completely prohibited in public, among other things. Also, women are forced to cover their entire bodies. You feel that such a conservative society is close-minded and not open to principles of fre

Religion is a part of everyday life to many people, even atheists who go around and scorn religion. But what brings about an air of negativity in religion is the notion of extremism. When one thinks of extremism, one thinks of fanatical advocates of a religion, and spreading it. One thinks of violence, and a mind set in Macchiavellian philosophical beliefs. Ignorance and isolation are hallmarks of extremism, as are centricism, arrogance and close-mindedness. Then there's the pseudo-synonym of extremism that boggles everyone's mind: fundamentalism. Fundamentalism involves following the fundamentals, or basics, of a certain belief, and that's that. Fundamentalism, however, is often confused with extremism in that while fundamentalism involves tolerance (tolerance is a core of most if not all world religions), extremism more often than not does not involve tolerance. Islam has been at the center of debate when it comes to fundamentalism and extremism, mostly due to world event