This thread will be dedicated to opinions and ideas on world peace, not just cessation of war, not truce, but true peace. The first entry below submitted is by my friend Isaac, who is a true seeker of truth and peace.

Ivan

Listen Yvan, the article that I am sending you is the BEST one I have ever read about Arabs and religious fanaticism. Surprisingly it is written by an Arab in an Arab web site.

'Why do Arabs Hate the West, Especially the U.S.?'

Isaac

A Dialogue Between The Dalai Lama, Chairman Yasser Arafat, and Shimon Peres.

Shimon Peres: "Gentlemen, I have brought you here today to see if we can make progress towards resolving the fifty year conflict between the Arab Palestinians and Jews of Israel. You are both highly respected representatives of your respective peoples in their quest for independence, Tibet being occupied by China, and Palestine lands contested by Israel and Palestinian Arabs, yet you both seem to have very different approaches towards peace and liberation for your people. I would like to hear from both of you on how this impossible condition of desired sovereignty can be resolved, in your views. First, Chairman Arafat."

Yasser Arafat: "I would like to say first that Israel will never succeed in dominating the people of Palestine as they have over the past fifty years. We will fight this occupation as long as there is breath in us, and never give up our struggle for liberation. We will use any tactics available to us in this struggle. As long as young men and women are willing to sacrifice themselves for freedom, the struggle will go on. Let it be known that we have friends throughout the Arab lands who support us in this war with the occupiers of our lands, and that we have been the people of Palestine for thousands of years. God gave us this land, and none may take it away from us."

The Dalai Lama: "Hmm... I seems that the positions of both Israelis and Palestinians are equal, both claiming to own the land from the beginning of time, as decreed by God. Of course, God may see this differently, since he sees your struggle from a great distance. If you step back from your present conflict and see it at a distance, it is not so black and white, and it begins to look rather small. The people of Tibet also occupied their country from time lost in history, and yet we have a neighboring nation claiming rights to the same lands. The Chinese say the land of Tibet is theirs, and had always been theirs, so that our struggle for independence from China's oppressive occupation is illegitimate, in their view. Of course, our struggles are valid to us, and no doubt they are valid in the eyes of God. What may be different is that what for us is a life or death struggle, for God it is merely another small drama in the lives, the many repeated lives, of men. We are passionate about a cause not passionately shared by God."

Peres: "If I understand what you are both saying, that the desire for a free land for your peoples are extremely important, but the way to achieve this liberation is not equal to you. Where the Chairman would fight to the death for this, the Dalai Lama has a more balanced view, that God sees us as small and far away, so that our struggles have a passion with which He does not share. Am I right in how I understand you?" (Both parties silently nod in agreement.) Then how can this be resolved without invoking passions, to bring peace to where it appears impossible? Perhaps the Dalai Lama can take this first?"

Dalai Lama: "We do not believe it is justifiable to take another life. Monks in the past had taken lives, but not because of the teachings of our religion, but because they took it into their own hands to fight. They had forgotten that we are very small creatures in a very big universe, and that our lives here are marked by the fact that what we do to ourselves, and each other, will not affect the course of the universe, or God. Whether or not we succeed will make small change. But what is important is the integrity of each human life, that each person be treated with respect and honor of what their life is about. Freedom is such a treatment of others, that we let them be, same as they let us be. All living things will struggle for space, for food, for survival. But they also struggle to coexist, to work together in nature, to bring about the good of everything together, though they may not even know they are doing this. This is how God sees things, and this is not small, to bring things together into a good whole. What is small is when we forget this and see our cause as the most important thing in existence, which it may not be. So to kill another means that we value our cause above the life worth of the other, and this can never be. Because when we see it this way, we forget God, and think only of ourselves."

Arafat: "I have listened patiently to what your Excellency is saying, but I must disagree. Though I honor the Christian teachings, there is no virtue in turning the other cheek. If we give the Israelis a centimeter, they will take a meter. No, they will take kilometers! We must resist them with all our might, or they will invade our lands and take possession as they already had, and our people will be left with nothing. These are foreigners who came here, from Russia, from Europe, from America, and they have cast us out. We are the people of Palestine, not them. While they push, we can never give in. You may think God sees this as a small problem, but for the survival or our people, it is a very big problem. I am sure Mr. Peres knows what I am talking about. What good is thinking of how to work for a bigger good if they take everything away from us?"

Peres: "If I may remind you, Mr. Chairman, but we did make progress at the Camp David Accords towards sharing of the lands of Palestine. Was the peace agreement a farce? Was it only one sided, so that we gave something, and in your minds you gave nothing?"

Arafat: "The Camp David Accords were made in good faith, same as Mr. Abbas is now negotiating in good faith to bring peace. We do not wish to go down in history as pact breakers. But the broken pact of peace was by Israel, when they sent in the settlers into the Palestinian lands! The blame is fully on them. And for this our people resisted, even in killing themselves."

Dalai Lama: "Killing themselves, yes, same as our monks killed themselves in protest. But we do not kill others in the process. So this is where your tactics had been different from ours. We too want our land back, and we want to make peace with China so they will recognize our sovereignty to live in peace, to seek our way of life, to practice our beliefs. But their minds are closed, and we cannot make them see this. So we are patient, and we continue telling the world our story, so they will not forget. We want to work with the bigger picture of how things are on this world, while we are alive in it, and to bring about a lasting peace, not merely a truce. I believe that if we fought in the way you want to fight, and the Chinese did not annihilate us, then they could be forced out. But what kind of peace would that be? They would come back again, and again, thinking we deprived them of what is theirs. That is no peace, but a perpetual war. To have a genuine peace, the kind God would like, is to have all parties agree that it is best for them."

Arafat: "Your peace will never work for us. You do not know the Jews. They have the guns, the missiles, and they will take everything all the time..."

Peres: "Not if it is in their interest to give instead. Again, you must remember that all our past negotiations wanted only one thing, that we share the lands together, and that you recognize Israel's right to exist. That is not asking too much, nor is it taking everything. We offered to create a Palestinian state, but as soon as this was agreed, the suicide bombers resumed killing our people. How can we make an agreement with you, if as soon as the ink dries, you already are breaking it?" (Shimon brings his hands together in a gesture of desperation.)

Dalai Lama: "How can we achieve peace, hmm? Look at Europe. They had two major world wars where they slaughtered each other. And yet now they are building a Unified Europe, so that all the past wrongs are being put aside. Or look at the United States. I know the country because I had lived there. They fought a very bloody civil war, and yet they emerged a great nation, one feared and respected by the whole world. It is not that they are not without their problems, but they are tolerant of each others differences, and in this they succeeded in building a great democratic nation, one where agreement is more important than constant strife. Why can this not be achieved by us? Why not have a peace where each is tolerant of the other, and sees the good in the other? Would not a unified region of the Middle East, including Israel, make for a better cultural and economic exchange than one divided by war? The same for Tibet. Would a Tibet that can coexist with China, with mutual respect on both sides, not be better than a land occupied from fear that to give up Tibet, China becomes vulnerable to India? Are we all not making assumptions that are wrong? India does not want Tibet. Is it not better to work together than to fight? Watch Europe grow, while we remain backwards. A free people have much to gain, in finding their happiness, whereas oppressed, or the oppressors, they have much to lose."

Peres: "Israel wants peace, but it is the Palestinians that keep denying this to us. We need to secure our borders..."

Arafat: "So you build a wall."

Peres: "...So our people will not be attacked. When Palestinians lived among us in peace, both we and they prospered. The economy was strong, where now it is in shambles. The Palestinians live at subsistence levels. Israel needs support from Jews outside our land for survival. Don't you think we want to move beyond this? But can this not be replaced instead with a peace where both economies, Israeli and Palestinian, are mutually benefited with jobs and trade? Manufacturing in both lands can compliment the other. Look at Lebanon, which when peace was established, is once again a golden coast of the Mediterranean for tourism. Why cannot we have the same? Peace would benefit all of us."

Arafat: "If peace were possible, yes, they would benefit. But you took our lands, not we took yours. You will say that when Israel became a state you invited us to stay and our rights respected. But this was not fact, for our homes and lands were taken from us from the very beginning. We fled to Jordan for fear, but now we are back. We want our lands back!"

Peres: "We offered you land, but you destroyed the Camp David peace process."

Dalai Lama: "Hmm... Perhaps you should turn to a third party again, since it seems that you both fear each other overly. If Tibet were a free nation, I would offer you our services, but we are like you, so cannot offer much. When nations can begin to see the benefits of their joint cooperation rather than hostilities, then it is simply a matter of bringing in an impartial arbitrator to help exchange the differences, so peace can be realized. Why not ask for outside help? Surely the United Nations, or some major power, not the United States, they have their hands full, but perhaps the new Europe? We in Tibet will need China to broker a real peace, but they are not fit as arbitrators since they are plaintiffs, as we are plaintiffs. Yet, China is as much in our future as Israel is in Palestine's future. Both are strong nations, even if internally they are wracked with fear. Surely, already you can see how peace will benefit you more than war, and your economies can become vibrant once more. Your religions are not different, since you both hail from Abraham. So why such suspicion, why so much hatred? Are you not raising yourselves to an importance that is important only to the ego, and not important to the betterment of both your nations? Why not put aside your personal feelings, and think of the good of the people? They will be much happier once free from fear and war."

Peres: "Mr. Chairman, who would you accept as arbitrator?" (Arafat studies Peres in silence while the Dalai Lama looks on. At length he speaks.)

Arafat: "Russia. We know the Russians, and they would be our trade partners. And the Russians know Israel, since so many of the Jews came from Russia. So have Putin on the phone, and I will talk to him now." (Dalai Lama smiles.)

Dalai Lama: "We would like Russia to broker a peace with China too, but the Chinese are mistrustful of Russia, as Russia is mistrustful of China. No, we must wait for the United States, when they are not so eager for Chinese trade, to help us, or Europe... so we must wait. Of course, if Israel and Palestine can come to peace, perhaps you could help?" (He smiles again. Peres sees the joke too, acknowledges it with a faint smile.)

Peres: "Then it is peace with the help of a third party that can work best. I can only speak for myself, but I believe the Israeli people will buy this peace if it is genuine. The illegal settlements are our internal affair, and this we will address ourselves. The bombings and killings of innocents, even children, that must stop. No peace can come from people living in perpetual fear of attack. This is true for the people of Gaza and the West Bank, same as it is true for the people of Israel. Muslims and Jews can live together, once we learn to be tolerant of one another's differences. Men and women will feel a new kinship with their neighbors, and friendships lost to war can once again resume. Is this too much to ask for, Mr. Chairman?"

Arafat: "You kept me from attending church service on Christmas day. Was this not a small and vile thing to do? I had always gone to the Church of the Nativity on Christmas, and yet you denied me this. How can peace come if you deny me the right to worship as I need? I am Muslim, but I honor all religions, and yours too, your Excellency, though I do not much understand how Buddhism can have a God who does not exist. That aside, yes, our egos are much tied up in all we do, to the detriment of our people, but we are only an expression of their egos. And if they do not want peace, then no matter how much we negotiate a good bargain, they will still fight. All I can offer today, if it were in my power, is to bring to the negotiating table the needs and wishes of our people. If peace comes, it will be on the shoulders of all Palestinians who want peace... and there are many who will never want it."

Peres: "Your words are true for Israel too. Though we may make the best peace, there will be those who will sabotage our efforts, in the way Rabin was killed shortly after singing a prayer of peace, by my side. We all know he was dedicated to peace, and he was killed... by a Jew. So the road to best intentions may be paved with peril from within, as much as from without. And yet, we have no choice. If history will be our judge, we must find a path to peace. (Peres is ready to end this dialogue and looks around at both guests to see if either needs to speak. It seems they are ready to quit it here too.) Then I must say thank you honored gentlemen, your Holiness, Mr. Chairman, for your fine thoughts expressed today. I hope we can resume this dialogue at another time, when peace is already on the horizon." (They shake hands all around, thanking each other for coming. Then, at the last moment, the Dalai Lama's eyes lit up, and he needed to add something.)

Dalai Lama: "Gentlemen, when it was offered by an Italian Count, I can't remember his name, maybe he was killed, to make Jerusalem into an international city, why was it rejected?"

Yasser and Shimon together: "Ah, Jerusalem!..."

* * * * * * *
This dialogue never took place, so this is only a virtual dialogue, a work of fiction. But maybe it should have taken place, or perhaps it still could.

The curse of coercion must be lifted through the art of agreement.

WAGING PEACE

The Carter Center for Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, Building Hope.

Editors

By going inside and shutiing the door.

Whoops forgive me for the spelling mistake.
Answer should read:

"By going inside and shutting the door"

At least shut the door until all the yelling stops.

:-}

THE GREAT HUMAN PARADOX: Why Islam and the West are Not at War.

Is it not in the nature of human beings to live within a web of paradox, and yet not think so? In the Western world, the thoughts and hopes and dreams of centuries of culture have generated a civilization that aspires towards equality for all human beings, for protecting our human rights within a framework of democracy and just law, for intellectual and religious freedom, and for the truths of science to determine for us what is real versus what is myth. And yet, we do not always do this. In the Eastern civilizations, centuries of development have created a framework of society based upon the equality of human beings before a Deity, a One God, for obedience to just laws within a strong moral code of behavior dictated by holy scriptures, and for charity towards those too weak to compete economically, such as widows and orphans. Yet, these are more a rarity rather than fact. These two great civilizations advanced at their own pace, alternately at times one surpassing one another. Also both developed strong ideologies based on philosophical foundations of what is right living for human beings. Therein lies the paradox, that both believe themselves the right way, while refusing to see the other's perspective as valid. This is a paradox which leads to a potential condition of clashes of civilizations. But are they at war?

I am a product of the European West, and in my thinking are centuries of ideology that had brought the past into the present, from the ancient Greeks to the modern philosophies of the post Enlightenment, where I believe in the higher values of my civilization. To be consistent, I must allow for the same principles with which I see my fellow members of society to be extended to all human beings throughout the planet. I yearn to see freedom and rule by law and agreement become planetwide. Yet, in truth, we are not always able to live up to our principles, and so regress into a state of where our ideals are forgotten, where some lower nature of ourselves takes over, some fear that holds us back, and we abuse or coerce one another instead. This is most exemplified by the great wars fought both on the European continent, and around the world. In my travels through the lands of the East, especially those of the Muslim countries, such as Sudan, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia, I had always marveled at the great civilization of Islam, especially when it was in its full glory, and saw first hand how the men and women I met personally always treated me with great respect and honored my being with their genuine hospitality. This was the norm, though there were also those who would cheat me, or even harm me physically, but I dismissed these as criminal intent in the same way I dismissed them while traveling through countries of the west: Criminals exist in all societies. But what struck me as the greatest contrast was when I was in Agra, India, a city with both a large Muslim and non-Muslim, mostly Hindu, population. It was here that I could witness the grandness of Islam in the architectural beauty of the Taj Mahal, while around it there was the low squalor of poverty, to the point where I even witnessed child slavery. This to me was the great paradox, that a civilization can create such beauty, while at the same time be surrounded by such apathetic want. How could two such worlds coexist?

We have the same paradox in the West, that behind the great achievements of our civilization, in science and technology, in economic productivity, in respecting our freedoms and human rights, there would coexist prostitution, enslavement, drug abuse, material decadence. How can a civilization founded on the great achievements and philosophical truths of the Enlightenment harbor criminality of all sorts? Is not at the fountainhead of Western thinking a Messiah who taught the paramount truth, that we are to love one another? And yet, while we may pray to God in Church, we fail this in so many ways. How is this different from the paradox of the East, that in the teachings of the Koran we are to be the peacemakers, that to slay another human being is equal to slaying all humanity? And yet, there are those in the Muslim world who would slay brutally non combantants, innocent people, even children. These are tragic human paradoxes, which makes us as a people not so different from one another.

In the West, there is now a conscious awakening that we are all part of an interrelated planetary whole, and that to abuse nature is to destroy ourselves, so that to preserve Earth's ecology is a widely accepted ideal. And yet, we destroy our forests, pollute our lands and waters, kill off whole species of wild life, and abuse the Earth until the planet itself rebels against us. So we in the West live in a state of paradox, same as the East lives in a state of paradox, where ideals are forgotten or ignored. The cult like movement to destroy Western values through suicide bombings and terrorist strategies flies in the face of reason for a civilization based on peace and submission to God's will. What God had ever dictated that we should kill one another? None. This is a human failing that results in our living in a perpetual state of coercion rather than agreement. Western culture is becoming world dominant, even in China and throughout the far East, same as it has become desirable for the people of the Middle East. Young people want the same material goods everywhere, and to enjoy the same freedoms, even if it is not of their cultural traditions to have such freedoms, nor in their history to produce such material wealth. But this does not prevent them from wanting this, even if these same peoples do not understand the tremendous demands of responsibility such freedoms, or economic wealth, put on us. They do not come from a vacuum, but instead are the products of great industry, of honor in our dealings with one another, and of a vigilance of excellence that all things work right to be made real. Industry on a vast economic scale is extremely complex and difficult. To achieve freedom is extremely hard work. And at the root base of it all is to respect other human beings for their differences, to be tolerant even if we do not agree with them.

Perhaps it is in the nature of the human psyche that we live in paradox. When you think of all religions, they universally demand we suspend some portion of our reason to believe in the miraculous. This is true of all peoples throughout the planet. I often wondered how a young Brahman could become a physicist, and yet I this is totally acceptable, as I discovered in conversation with a fine young man at a Hindu temple in Madras, not far from the cathedral where Saint Thomas's remains are believed burried. This young man, a doctor of physics, told me that it is perfectly fine to believe in Brahma, and all the religious teachings of Hinduism, and still believe in science. He then took me into the inner sanctum of the temple, while the priest was away since I not Hindu am not allowed, and performed the three sacred processions around the god. This is what it is to be human, that we accept paradox. If we did not, then we would have no religion. And we would have no beauty.

How is this different from accepting the paradox that others have a belief totally opposed to ours, and yet live in peace with it? We cannot prevent others from believing what they will, even if we totally disagree with it, provided this belief does not trespass on us. Same as we wish for religious freedom, we cannot force that same religion on another. We cannot demand that we have the freedom to worship while demanding the others worship same as we do. This is a paradox that leads to oppression and abuse of privilege. To find agreement means that we prevent coercion, so that a common ground may be found where we can live within paradox, because this is in our nature to do so. We already live in paradox. We believe in what to another may be absurd. So fine, let that be an acceptable human reality, but then once done, we cannot reverse back to saying that only our way is right. The freedom of human beings, if they are to be liberated from all enslavements, means that we must respect the other while at the same time keep the other from trespassing on us.

So there is no war between the East and the West, between the cultural and largely secular values of a post Enlightenment Western world, and an Eastern world based on the Holy Scriptures of religion. These two are not mutually exclusive, but rather are entangled within the fact that human beings are by their very nature paradoxical. The proof of this is that if we were not paradoxical, we would have to suspend all beliefs. And if we suspended all beliefs, then we would have no religions, no God, no moral codes, and no spiritual values, nor beliefs of any kind. But that is not reality. Reality is that we are very complex beings who have a panoply of beliefs that defy logical explanation, and yet which, like the Taj Mahal, leads to the incredible beauty of our existence. This is Who we are. No one should ever be allowed to take away from us our cherished beliefs. And in this paradox, there is no war, for we can learn to live with one another through a greater consciousness of our differences, and through our conscious effort to find agreement. The enemy is not Islam, nor the West. The enemy is a wrong belief, the belief that it is right to coerce one another. Such a belief, from either the West or the East, is totally wrong. That is the war we should all be fighting for, that this coercion against another human being is never to be allowed. Our real war is against coercion itself.

As conscious human beings, paradoxical that we may be, we are capable of incredible beauty, and incredible peace. This is the future wealth of all our cultures. This is the true submission of our human being, that we should bow modestly, and find the good in each other, without trespass. We are not at war, except in how we are at war with ourselves. Therein lies the great human paradox, that while we are in conflict with each other, we are in fact in conflict within ourselves. Worldwide, we need to confront coercion within ourselves.

Ivan

Conflict resolution has tradtionally been achieved through violence in human history. Only of late have we begun to seek rational discourse as an alternative. This rational discourse lays the foundation for the next step, which is to remove conflict entirely.

There are two primary roots of interpersonal conflict - mental (misunderstanding) and physical (lack of resources). To address the first, humanity has already taken dramatic strides. Communication, tolerence, and understanding are all becoming easier and more widely spread throughout the global society. It shouldn't be long now (on a sociological time scale) before all of these needs are addressed.

The second root is, ironically, even more easily addressed, but we have failed to do so because the mental has tripped us up for so long that we've been unable to properly focus on the physical. To end greed and want, we must end wealth, which calls for universal distribution of resources. Given the inestimable wealth of the solar system and, later, the entire galaxy, all that remains is a method of harvesting and distributing the material throughout society equitably. It is in this regard that our command of technology will best serve us in both the near future and the far.

Bush-- "We Believe that liberty is the design of nature. We believe that liberty is the direction of history."-- Go Mr. President!

We believe freedom is for all people, Loya Jurgas, tribal councils, anywhere in the world, anytime in history, people want to be free.

ON A DEMOCRATIC MIDDLE EAST

Dear Anonynous, and all,

Here is a BBC article titled "How democratic is the Middle East?" that addresses Bush's recent speech at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3250773.stm

Dear DynamicUno,

Thanks for your post of Nov. 6, 2003, above.

"Wealth" is a tricky word, since it may mean different things to different people. Or, as they say, one man's junk may be another man's treasure, as any yard sale would testify. The trick is to have "wealth" spread out throughout a population without coercing some to give up what they hold dear in order to enrich another. An extreme case of this is communism, which is practiced in some form by most primitive societies through sharing of the means of survival. On a more sophisticated level, such as practiced in developed market economies, the quasi-communistic effect is freqently exhibited through associations, such as condo associations, or through insurance networks, such as social security and universal healthcare, where the participants come to some social or private agreement to guarantee a level of sustinance and sharing of responsibilities. While this is done through a process of agreements, all are served as best could be achieved through these agreements; but when forced upon us through social and governmental coercions, something gets lost in the process. If these coercions are too extreme, meaning too expensive, the system starts to fail. I believe this is what ultimately brought down the Soviet Communism system in the Eastern European countries. China, another communist country, has been spared this economic collapse by tapping into some form of the market system, whereby by definition exchange is a process of agreements between trading parties. If not by agreement, then exchange ceases and coercion results. In a highly technological and economically sophisticated society, such as observed in the developed countries, forced redistribution from the haves to the have nots could ultimately prove to be catastrophic, as is now happening in Zimbabwe where modern agriculture is being replaced by forced land redistribution, and the growing likelihood of mass starvations. When economic systems fail, as during the Great Depression, many suffer.

This is not to argue against your suggestion: "To end greed and want, we must end wealth, which calls for universal distribution of resources", only to show that the solution to this problem must be approached with care, or we end up redistributing our wealth resulting in more damage than good. I had addressed some of this in my book "Habeas Mentem, Ch. 14", linked below. Keep up the good work, and keep thinking, because we will need many minds to come to grips with how to find a way of conflict resolution in society without creating still more conflict.

Wealth is a Conscious Act:
http://www.humancafe.com/chapter-fourteen.htm

RE Dialogue with Dalai Lama, posted Sept. 3, 2003.

Here is followup on the above post, not virtual but real life, as written up in BBC News: "UN endorses Mid-East roadmap": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3283949.stm

Maybe the ideas proposed in the "Diaglogue" were not so far fetched? Let us pray this is so, that Peace is a real possibility.

Ivan

BANKRUPTCY of SADDAM HUSSEIN's cause?

Saddam Hussein was captured by the American Allied troops at his Tikrit hiding place. He did not put up much resistance, rather surrendered meekly, with $750k US and a revolver, which he did not use on himself. Is this not the sad picture of a man bankrupt, after all his power and glory? What should be his fate?

There are two choices, either try him in Iraq, where the people will demand his death, and likely succeed in killing him; or try him in a world court, where his horrible crimes against his people, against humanity, will be revealed in great detail? If he is killed, then he continues in the afterlife as a larger than life symbol of what he stood for; if he is denied his death and allowed to live instead, this will send a clear message to the terrorist Arab organizations that the Arab world is changing, and that the old tactics of torture, death, suicide bombings, mean spirited revenge, jihad styled fundamentalism, anti-western culture hate teachings, will no longer work. By letting Saddam live, these acts now become bankruptcy. Their inspiration in Hussein to lead Arabs in a violent campaign against the world is failure. This will also send a word to all the progressive, educated, free spirited, and courageous men and women of the Arab world that their cause is now free of the terror that had oppressed them, and that their future world has prospects of freedom and social, cultural, and spiritual advancements. Saddam needs to not be killed but to die an old and anonymous death so that the greater future of the Arab world can live.

So let Saddam live, be tried in a World Court, so all in the world will see a living testimony that his bankrupt way of life is ended. The future is not violence and coercion, and terror, and suicide killings by those at the bottom. Rather the future is a new order of things where laws are upheld to protect all individuals, and their freedoms, and all people have a chance to rise from the bottom, for the peaceful betterment of the whole Arab world.

Editors

Madrid Blasts: Who is to blame?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3501364.stm

Al-Qaeda?... more probable... a horrible shame.

AL QAEDA ET AL'S SIGNATURE IN MADRID?

Anon,

The atrocious killings of civilians aboard commuter trains in Madrid, where several trains were involved simultaneously, does have the signature of al-Qaeda et al, in that it was so well coordinated to cause the most terror. This is something Israelis had to live with in the Middle East, and now it has spread into Europe, perhaps the worst case of terrorism thus far. Such calculated horror is the work of sick minds, of diseased individuals whose symptoms are pure hatred of humanity. The hearts of the Spanish people are sickened by this horror against their innocent people, as we are sickened worldwide. In this sadness, they have our sympathy from all peoples of Europe, the Americas, and around the world. We must not forget that the recent threat to the French rail system was real, and may still be, and here it manifest on the rails of Spain instead. It does not appear to be ETA. But for al-Qaeda, if they are responsible, it would serve their interests if this escalates into a new crusade against Christianity, Judaism, and a war between them and Islam. But this will not be. The disease will be removed through surgery, through eliminating the sick individuals who had delighted in killing innocent human beings. Like in the American experience, Spain will now undergo a greater vigilance, as will the rest of Europe. If the terrorists's signature is death and terror, then let the rest of the world's signature be that their terror will not succeed.

God Bless. Sincerest condolences.

"Europe has been confronted with the 'most heinous crime in its entire post-war history'," writes Nezavismaya Gazeta, Russia.

Like in Moscow bombings, in New York, and Israel, Bali, the train bombings in Madrid are acts of cowardly murder against innocent civilians. European press ask "Why?" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3504032.stm
The murders will be found, and rooted out like the disease of social cancer they are. If their goal is to launch a new Crusade against the West, or merely to kill, it shows how backwards they are, left behind by a history of more than a thousand years. The sick evil ones of the Abu Hafs al-Masri et al are no more than vicious criminals who will be exposed for their primitive cruelty and brought to justice.

This is a day of mourning. Our most heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families of loved ones lost.

Editors, Humancafe

ARABIC SOLIDARITY AGAINST TERRORISM

What is still absent is a vocal protest from the Arabic peoples against the use of terrorism. This protest should not be merely from their governments, but by popular support of the populations themselves, in particular those in the host European countries where they have chosen to live. Indeed there are issues here, such as the shador issue in France, or legal immigration status, but these should distance themselves from the terrorist issues, not to prevent a possible backlash, but more to express the evil that the killing of innocent civilians by terrorist tactics represent.

Some Muslims had joined with their Christian and Jewish fellow citizens in Madrid during public protests there against the horrible killings, mostly of young people who were students on their way to school, some of whom were Muslim. There is no doubt that a great portion of the Arabic and North African population, both living in Europe and in their home countries, are against such use of terrorism. They must be heard, and seen en masse. Ordinary Muslims do not condone such evil acts. It should be for their religious leaders to make this known to the world, especially in the host countries, that the tactics of al-Qaeda et al are not to be admired, but to be despised instead.

"Terrorist are criminals." This should be as one voice by all Arabic peoples, especially their religious leaders. This should also be the message for the state-organized demonstrations in Tangiers, Morocco, against terrorism, as it should be elsewhere. As the BBC article "Prayers and fears of Madrid's Muslims" quotes a Muslim: "We are with the Spanish people and are feeling the same pain as everyone. We want peace." This should be a strong message from all Arabic peoples.

Subject: Stop Spreading Hatred

I think being a Muslim you are not working for peace. You are misguided, mistaken and spreading hatred through disinformation and false accusations, which is resulting in death and miseries for number of innocent people living around the world at the hands of merciless KILLER MUSLIMS and also bringing bad name to MOHAMMED as Founder Of Islam.

Try and work for peace and reconciliation, and prove to the WORLD through your deeds that MOHAMMED teaches "love & peace" and not Cruelty, Inhumanity and "Hatred & Killing" of the innocent civilians.


S.A.R

LITTLE BOMBER WHO COULDN'T
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3567791.stm

That kid is fashinating also the (European) tv, mostly they point out that he was going to do that job for the equivalent of Euro 20. Who knows why that kid didn't push the button?


From martyrdom to cowardom, or to life in prison, which is his future? If they make him a hero, his friends can choose a better way instead becoming of suicide bombers.


Let's kill ignorance!

Why I Am a Muslim: An American Odyssey by Asma Gull Hasan

This is a voice of Islam that should be heard to show the world that it is not a religion as defined by the terrorist criminals but a religion like all others, of peace and love of God-Allah. Moderate Muslims everywhere should read this too, as should non-Muslims who want to understand why fanatic extremists have cruelly abducted this religion by twisting it into teachings of death and destruction. The only problem is that once a Muslim, one is never again allowed to leave. How does that square with the West's value of individual personal human rights to freedom? World peace will depend on those human rights respected for all people.

IRAQ AT MERCY OF TERRORISTS?

Iraq's interim government is not to be envied if the US led coalition takes an early exit. (See BBC News, "Iraq exit strategy: Promise or hope?") If there is a premature pull-out, Sadr and his gangs win, Iran wins, the religious fundamentalists win, and the Iraqi people will become subject to their non-democratic whims, with possible retributions against all those who had worked for change. Saddam's ouster would then have played directly into their hands, a victory won without the costs of war, since this war was fought by others. If the coalition stays the course, trains a credible defense force in Iraq against terrorism, oversees a peaceful transition to a newly elected democratic constitutional government in 2005, then all the expense and efforts of this ouster would be justified. If not, to revive an old theory, watch the dominoes begin to fall, ending with the likely collapse of the Saudi kingdom. Such a fall would be especially ironic, since it was their Wahabism that set all these force in motion in the first place. Will Iraq's future, its goal for modernity, for equal rights, for human rights, fall to the mercy of internal forces given to terrorism, killing, retributions, economic instability? Or will their future be a new democratic guiding light for all peoples of the Middle East, even in Palestine? It is in God's hands.

Editors, Humancafe

WAHABISM sect of Islam, rolling back the calendar 1400 years:

How to end "oil for blood" money: http://www.saag.org/papers10/paper903.html

Wahabism described: http://biphome.spray.se/isllam/WAHABYA.htm?

There may be little the West can do to stop this fringe sect's movement, except to encourage moderate reform. Perhaps a world conference on neutral grounds between religious leaders from all over the world may be a good first step. The other is to end the West's dependence on Saudi oil.

There is no honor in being socially dysfunctional, going around killing each other, it's just not cool.

Humans on Earth are still a very primitive species, and evolution is a misnomer, our devolution dominates for now.

AGAINST THE AMERICANS?

America has deposed a vile dictator in Iraq. They are now seen by the world as occupiers of a foreign land. Their response is they are there to bring freedom, and a constitutional democratic government. The insurgents respond with killings and kidnappings, and more killings in most grisly ways, by beheadings. It is their way to grap power from the American forces. America wants to transfer power to a locally elected constitution government guaranteeing basic human freedoms. Foreign interests from other Arab countries, and non-Arab Muslim countries are sending in insurgents to fight a jihad against the Americans. Ordinary Iraqi people are caught in the crossfire, bombed, arrested, until their support for the Americans turns to hatred. This is the freedom they never asked for, nor do they understand.
America cannot abandon its cause, with or without the support of the world. The insurgents are cold blooded murderers who cannot be accomodated, or negotiated, or in any way appeased. Their reign of terror is to topple the new Iraqi government, whatever the price in human life or unhappiness. Water, electricity, schools, hospitals, roads, are operational again in Iraq, but this counts for naught if the people are oppressed by their own jihadis, their homegrown or imported terrorist killers. This is the great challenge of transition in Iraq from an oppressive dictatorial government run by sadism and sons to a constitutional democrary reflecting the values of the local culture. If this culture supports freedom, human rights, rule of law, then the transition will succeed, though it will be at a very high price in human lives as the terrorists step up their vicious policy of fear. But if the Iraqi people do not have freedom in their hearts, then there is no solution that will satisfy anyone, and after the turning over of power, it will be time for the American forces, and their allies, to leave Iraq. If this is their fate, God help them.
It is not a war, jihad, against the Americans. It is a war against freedom itself.

X

IRAQ'S FUTURE LIES IN THE BALANCE

Can this nation be liberated from where the most murderous are the most powerful? This is test of historic proportions for Iraq, and of near cosmic proportions for the world.

What shall this nation's epitaph be in history? Will it read:

"Here lie the remains of a great nation whose civilization dates back more than five thousand years, famous Babylon on the Euphrates, blessed by the Prophet, but now in charred ruin from all the wars, wells poisoned, rivers lifeless, its people killed, cities destroyed and returned to the desert, for with hatred and fear in their hearts, they never learned to live together in peace."

Or perhaps it will read instead, which is all of our sincerest hope:

"Here stands a great nation under God, Allah, which spreads its wings of freedom to all its neighbors, in peace for all peoples, a witness to rule of law dating to the great Hammurabi, now a democratic beacon of progress and human rights, a shining pride of the great Arab world, ruled by a people who were fearless of their future, and who loved peace equally for all humankind."

Which shall it be? If they succeed, then it will be an important historic milestone for the Middle East, and for world peace, where the brave hearts will win. If they fail, alas, then they are cast back into a mean spirited darkness, from which the world will know no peace without a very long and bitter struggle. This is an important test for all of us.

The new transitional Iraqi constitutional democratic government takes power in one week. A very hard task lies ahead. We wish them every success and God speed.

Humancafe

When asked at the Irish EU summit about prison
abuse in Iraq, Bush replied:

"Bush said, ''It did harm. It did harm.'' But he
said the American investigations will be done
openly, as opposed to the secrecy of Saddam
Hussein's atrocities. ''I don't remember any
international investigation of what took place in
Iraq'' under Saddam, Bush said."

You tell'em Bush! Nobody investigates prison
abuse in scores of countries, where society is
closed to the outside world, except an occasional
whine from Amnesty.

SAVING ISLAM

Every passage of the Koran starts with the same veneration, "In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful." This is like a call to prayer, to remember that above us all, each and every one of us, there is a greater power, a greater Truth, to which we all must bow with humility. We are reminded that we are human beings in the presence of a much greater Being than we can imagine, one so powerful and great that to Him there is nothing lower, only great Compassion and Mercy. This is the Love of God for humanity, for all of us, each one no matter how lowly or fallen: we are Loved. That is the message from the Prophet Mohammed at the heart of Islam, same as it echoes the message from Jesus in the heart of Christianity, to Love one another. It is the same of all Judeo-based religions, of the Love that Loves us. Where did we diverge?

Somewhere in the teachings of Islam something went awry, for God's Love and Mercy, His Compassion, was forgotten for humankind to practice with each other, given that since He will Forgive us, there is no act of man that cannot be forgiven. And there is the error. In that misinterpretation of the sacred teachings of Prophets, and all their holy men, men turned their backs on God's Love towards one another, for no matter how fallen we become, there is always a redemption, a Mercy. What had been a teaching of how we should be towards one another, with love and compassion, which is the fundamental basis of all world religions, became lost somehow in its applications. Rather than emulating God, this error sought to find shelter instead, so that no matter how horrible the crime committed for whatever cause, religious or political, an end justifying the means mentality took over. Coercion became not only acceptable towards others, sometimes taken to the extremes of coercing and killing innocents, especially non-combatant women and children, but was mistakenly understood to be a desirable, necessary act. Allah would forgive? Who said so? Beheadings of innocent hostages became the end result, which is a horror of humanity towards humanity. Can this gross error become reversed? Can Islam be saved from such a horrible error in mistaken teachings?

There is a beautiful passage in the Koran's Luqman, where God beseeches humanity:

"My son, be steadfast to prayer, enjoin justice, and forbid evil. Endure with fortitude whatever befalls you. That is the duty incumbent on all.
"Do not treat men with scorn, nor walk proudly on the earth: Allah does not love the arrogant and the vainglorious. Rather let your gait be modest and your voices low."

Analysis: Turkey, adultery, and the EU

By Jonny Dymond - BBC correspondent in Istanbul, Turkey, writes how "honour" killings, murders against women accused of ellicit affairs, often murdered by their male family relations, will not longer be acceptable. In its place will be a new awareness that attacks on anyone will be a crime against the individual.

These are the first glimmers of reversing the radicalized interpretation of Islam, where progressive human rights can be reintroduced into society. Crimes are against individuals. Turkey is the first to step forward, who is to follow?

There is still a long path towards the future, human rights, environmental awareness, technological modernization, better education, women's equality, to bring radicalized Islam from the brink of self-suicide. These self inflicted wounds of humanity need not be passed on to society at large, and in turning away from radically repressive ideas, the good people of Islam can move forward into a more just and enlightened, a progressive future, to make for a better world.

Humancafe.com

AL QAEDA BUILDS AN ARMY IN EUROPE
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=794

The article written two weeks before the tragic Madrid train bombings revealed a sinister drive to recruit "white" terrorists, Europeans recently converted to Islam, by Al Qaeda. Their success may be overstated, there will be no new army of killers, but if there was, then a serious threat would be building in the EU's major cities. Targets may be monuments, people, infrastructure, government and private institutions, apartment buildings, clubs, department stores, rails, etc. We must assume EU's police take this risk seriously.

The search for Bin Laden

Where is Osama bin Laden? If the latest al_jazeera tape is genuine (meaning he is still alive and it is not dubbed), then it shows a man unrepentant for causing the death of so many Americans, which itself unleashed a global war against terrorism causing still more casualties. By striking he trespassed, and his coercion demands by right to be repulsed with coercion against him and his network. There can be no dialogue, nor meaningful inference, from his 'appeals' to the American people, nor people of the world. His word is void. There is no peace.

"A top Saudi cleric has urged Muslims to shun militant forms of Islam"

This BBC article shows cooler and wiser heads will prevail in future Islam, very important news.

Humancafe

THE FREE IRAQI PEOPLE

The Iraqi people paid dearly for their freedom. Inevitably they suffered during the war toppling their tyrant, including innocent civilian casualties and destruction of property. Their martyred souls died for freedom. No, not the suiciders, but the martyred innocent people they killed. The suiciders are supposed to die. The innocent martyrs paid with their blood for the people's dreams of freedom. Their history built of turmoil was the cauldron of blood from which they rose. Their free democratic government of empowered free men and women with opportunities for a better life will be the future for generations to inherit. The world must support them in their hopes and aspirations, for the Iraqi people paid dearly. The Kingdom of Heaven demands a high price of suffering to bring the fruits of freedom to our world. God bless them. Allah grant peace and prosperity, their children have paid full price in their suffering for a better world.

PACIFYING ISLAM?

(Cross-posted from the Examined Life Philosophy Discussion.)

As a philosophy of how human beings are to behave towards one another, as mandated by God, can Islam be pacified away from its central theme of Jihad?

If we consider a basic premise of Jihad as being the "pacifying" of all peoples into the faith of Islam, then can this same reasoning be applied in reverse order, where the "pacifying" of Islamists who wage war against non-Muslim societies becomes a central theme? An example of Jihadic reasoning is:

---

Quote:

..when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of "opening" the world to Islam. "[T]hose who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."

---

I bring up this theme, as a continuation of the discussion "War on Terror, or a War on a Cult?", in part because of the 9/11 Commission and Jihad report, quoted in part as:

---

Quote:

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Hanbali jurist 2

Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).

---

So how can the non-Islamic world address this aggressive attitude of religious duty to make "war-cum-non-war" on all societies who had either not converted to Islam or refused to pay it tribute?

I'd like to examine this from a philosophical perspective, where coercions such as these mandated by a faith, as believed given by God, are so contrary to the values of free societies, especially societies which value the rights of individuals, equitable rule of law, equality of the sexes; and the democratic process, where everyone has to right to express their opinions, and freedom of exchange, of both ideas and economic exchange, as our basic rights. Can "pacifying Islam" be accomplished within societies where freedom of speech is a basic human right? Given the quote above, is even our philosophical inquiry, our words, at risk of invoking the wrath of the jihadist? Is there a way to accommodate the extreme differences between the jihadists and free peoples without compromising our values of equality, so that we do not act condescendingly towards a war-like people who think it is their duty to convert us to their beliefs. Can Islam be pacified, without violence? Or, can our philosophical differences be examined, and resolved, peacefully?

My interest in asking these questions is to review if perhaps there may not already exist philosophical precedence in addressing such coercive behavior, especially given this coercion is mandated by a religion claiming to be the "word of God". Had Plato, or Kant, Wittgenstein, Hobbes, Rousseau, for example, addressed this issue in their thinking? If coercion can only be used to oppose coercion, which is also a basic premise of Islam in "pacifying" (not harb) all non-Islamics into their faith, is there a non-coercive, pacifying, solution to the aggressive advances of Jihad on our modern Western civilization? Can our freedoms survive such an attack? If it is the "will of God" that human freedoms be "lawfully" conquered, so that everyone on the planet do the "will of God" as mandated by one large Islamic group of the world's population, can this same God be without regard to everyone's right to do the "will of God" as they see fit? Why would this One-God give humans a "free will", if we see our freedoms as more important than a mandated obedience? Or, perhaps, this is the key issue: In Islam, there is no "free will", but only the "will of God" for everyone, so that anyone resisting this call to do "God's will" is automatically condemned a heretic. If so, if there is no lawful personal freedom to do "God's will", then should we not judge the Jihadists right, and go along with their coercive mandate, to subdue the whole world as "mandated by God"?

At what price is peace? At what price freedom? Did the European world not already fight this war, some four centuries ago? Do we have to fight it again, to pacify Islam?

I ask these questions respectfully, in the spirit of genuine philosophical inquiry, and in good faith.

As I read this last posting I am looking at a separate screen about a military incident in Iraq that has inflamed the Islamic world over the buring of Taliban bodies and a botched psychological warefare operation that was tied to it.

I have attached a link to it. When I do analysis I open multiple screens and fused the data as it comes in to detect paterns in the data.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/20/afghanistan.taliban/index.html

As hurricane Wilma pounds Mexico and Cuba another hurricane is blowing through the Middle East as a result of this operation. Our State Department has already issued warnings about the effect that this will have on the United States.

Like LTG Wessly Clark former NATO Commander, I can only shake my head in shame over this. THis is not the military we built. It is, suspect, something that Dr. Pepper on the x-posted website would endorse or shrug off as a minor incident.

Ed Chesky

Ed, there is no doubt Iraq and Afghanistan act as flash points to incite flocking of jihadists to their cause, but they may be more like a lightening rod than the bolt itself. If the negative atmosphere of anti-West, anti freedoms, sentiment was already there, gathering like a dark storm over us, then all the lightening rod did was help guide the bolt down to a predictable place. These wars are not anti-Islam wars, but to dislodge power structures that gave the jihadist safe quarter. Deposing Iraq's Saddam is not that, but it is like firing a canon over the water where someone drowned, so the body will float to the surface. Jihad is a real force for many true believers, meaning they take the 'teachings' of their holy texts literally, to the letter, that they are obligated to make war (not harb) on the infidels, which is all of us who are not Muslims. If so, then Iraq is a minor side show to a much bigger arena of conflict, while destroying Afghanistan's Taleban was a more direct hit.

It is not that conflict is without purpose, since good things come out of wars also. The liberation of all Europe from Nazism was a good thing, and today we see the growth of a unified European world based on progressive democratic values and economic well being. But same as if the boss hates his workers, or the workers hate their boss, such conflict is not the best way to run affairs, since there will be inevitable loss of productivity along the way. So is it with wars and conflict, that though the end result may work out, it was a bad way to get there. Working through meaningful and legal agreements is a better way to run affairs. That said, is it possible to "pacify Islam" with such a rule of law, rule of agreements, or is it not possible to do so? If not, then conflict will result. And if not possible to find a common ground on which agreements can be made, lawfully and honestly without hidden agendas, then can it be called the meeting of like minds, or are they too unlike to work it out? These are the real philosophical concerns, and not the side arenas of Iraq and Afghanistan, which are only the symptoms of a deeper disease.

Ivan

Ivan,

I agree with you for the most part on this subject. However with regards to Iraq, I take the same position that Colin Powells top aid takes on it with regards to this administration.

I have attached a link to the article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051021/wl_afp/usdiplomacypowell_051020230100

Like him I was in the same position regarding access and information on the Iraq War

Ed

Ibid.

---

Quote:

PACIFYING ISLAM -II

Now that Islam has reached out into the world through Jihad, to forcibly convert the planet to its philosophy, it has brought upon itself a perhaps unwanted attention. Narrow eyes are carefully watching. While Islam remained within the confines of its own cultural world, it was largely ignored, but their intrusion into the societies of the West, particularly migrations into Europe, has made them come into contact with Western ideals. This contact seems to have manifested as a confrontation rather than assimilation into Western ways, so that now they are faced with a magnified reflection of how different they are from other societies. Thus they are faced with either converting the peoples of the West to their way of thinking, forcibly through Jihad if need be, which they had been successful in doing in the long past centuries of their Golden Era; or they must conform to the modern ways of the world, which they seem unwilling to do. Hence, since they consider the West in decline, in its 'sunset', and their own world in ascendance, in their 'sunrise' (see Arab News reference on Iran), some within Islam (Al Qaeda et al.) decided upon launching a world Jihad.

Now, there are several possibilities to how this may play out in history. Three possible scenarios may happen here, and which path they choose may very well determine the future of Islam in the world. As I see them, the three possibilities are:

1. Takiyya: They decide to not to advertise Jihad, nor try for internal reforms, but instead fall back on takiyya, which means they offer one face to the West and another face to their own Muslim world. (Yasser Arafat was very good at this.) Of course, we got their number, so this will not be as opaque in the future, and rather will become more transparent with time. But since this buys them time, it may be useful as a tactic to stall the West into thinking that they are working on reforms and peaceful resolution, to placate any critics of Islamic advances, and ultimately continue as they had before. The goal is to not show their true cards (in Jihad), but make it look more like overtures to peace. The end result is a kind of stalemate where they can gain time to recruit more converts to their cause, which can ultimately once again be re-ignited as a bigger world Jihad (when the time is right). In fact, the terrorists are working cross purposes here with this strategy, since stealth is a better cover than overtly terrorizing their targeted societies in the West.

2. Genuine reforms: This would serve to placate criticism from the West, and allow Islamic intellectuals the freedom to modify basic tenets of the faith to make it more modern, more in tune with the West's democratic ideals and personal freedoms, of interhuman exchange through agreement rather than coercive mandates. Thus the faith undergoes a kind of internal reformation, a secularization, as experienced in European societies for the past four centuries, where "divine right" was replaced with representative government and rule of law. This would mean a more secular and tolerant Islam, one more in tune with progressive ideas of equality, of equal rights for women, and democratic constitutional government. This has a moderate chance of success, that it may happen in some Islamic nations, but it should not be expected across pan-Islam in general. At this time, in this century, such overtures towards modernization and secularization of Islam should expect aggressive, and actively coercive, resistance from their fundamentalist clerics and keepers of the faith. So this path has a limited chance of success, and at times realized in some progressive countries, but not to have a major effect on the greater Jihad. In fact, the reformers would be targets of violence and fatwahs themselves. Furthermore, where success is achieved, where Islamic societies restructure into constitutional democracies based on a rule of law, as defined by an agreed upon social contract, they will likely in time default back to some other version of Sharia law, which is far more restrictive than the individual liberties championed by the West. End result will be so-called Islamic "secular states" in name only.

3. Rejection of any reforms, and more Jihad: This is the most desired style for true Jihadists as practiced now, that they simply refuse to consider any changes to their violently coercive ways of thinking, and push for immediate world domination instead. This means more attacks on churches, intimidation towards anyone suggesting updating Islam with reforms, continued suicide killings to terrorize targeted societies, attacks on our democratic principles by using them to subvert them, demanding more tolerance towards their coercive restrictive actions, such as allowing their illegal and repressive cultural practices (female circumcision, strict Islamic dress, 'honor' killings, etc.) to be tolerate in democratic countries, etc. In effect, they continue to trespass on the values and rights of the nations into which they settled. However, since this strategy clearly offends more progressive societies with their overt violence and coercive tactics, and since it simultaneously goes contrary to Islam's own professed "progressive revelations" and Golden Rule (as posted: "Humanity forward or back: Islam Jihad Disconnect, 10/22/2005)), then it runs the danger of being ostracized by the world community entirely, meaning it is no longer seen as one of the world's great religions. This would not be a good thing for Islam, since it would bring Islam under full attack and criticism worldwide as a pariah, more of a cult than a legitimate religion (descendant from Abraham). This strategy would be suicidal, since without the tacit endorsement from other world religions, it simply falls into the category of a highly numerous world-cult. And once ruled a cult, it becomes open season on them. So this last path is the least likely, though true Jihadists would prefer it. However, even the most dye in the wool champions of Islamic expansionism, hoping for a resurrection of their Golden Age of conquest, would not be foolhardy enough to risk it all, because once no longer under the cloak of religious legitimacy, it might very well mean losing it all here. So this strategy of overt Jihad is less likely than now believed, and it should soon show signs of tiring.

So what is the likely outcome for cultural-Islam as it comes under greater scrutiny from all the peoples of the planet, who also happen to be its intended target for conversion? I think the second is least likely for now, though it would be the most desirable. The third is the one they will try to distance themselves, at least for now, since it brings too much attention to what they are doing (while they may still covertly offer it clandestine support). But the first, the tactic of takiyya, is the most intriguing, most in character with the teachings of their culture, and also most likely to succeed. At least, this will be how the higher strategist of world Jihad might see it. Remember that they have a very long timeline, so centuries of conquest may be either rapid or slow, but the ultimate goal is never lost in focus. This ultimate goal is to have world dominion under the governorship of descendants of their Prophet (to rule by "divine right") and entourage. So if they can keep the West's intrusions into their strategy off balance enough to convince them that they are making earnest efforts at reform, that they are trying to bring about secular reforms, they can at least buy time for their ultimate strategy: World Jihad.

Why do I bring up these possible scenarios? Because two can play the same game. If they can stall for time with takiyya, so can we. And in each passing decade the intrusions of communications, of ideas, of success of more (free) progressive societies, will intrude themselves further into the consciousness of the people locked within atavistic and repressive theocratic societies. This is not a war of civilizations, or cultures, since the two cultures are so different as to make them immensely unequal; they are not even comparable civilizations, since one harks back to ancient times. It would be like comparing modern England with ancient Egypt, where no meaningful comparison can be made. But rather this is a test. It is a world test of two great ideas of mankind: government by fear and coercion, by force on one hand; and government by democratic social agreements, by social contract on the other. One is how the world was run from prehistory, which included slavery; while the other is a modern development of the European and American post Enlightenment era, which ended slavery and championed liberty and human rights. In the end, which will succeed? Can the unique (no other religions have this) aggressive tendencies of Jihadic Islam be "pacified"?

I think it will be great fun to watch this unfold over the next hundred years. Since they think the West is in its 'sunset' while they are the 'sunrise', it will be fun to see if this is merely a self dillusion, or perhaps it is true. In my opinion, I suspect this will be the next great Millennial contest on the planet. Which will be the future model for human society, which will win on Earth: a society built upon Jihad inspired coercions, or society built upon a principle of social agreements?

---