أحمد نظيف

الدرجات العلمية
تخرج الأستاذ الدكتور أحمد نظيف من قسم الاتصالات والالكترونيات بكلية الهندسـة بجامعة القاهرة العام 1973 ثم حصل على الماجستير في هندسة الكهرباء العام 1976 . أكمل أبحاثه في جامعة ماكجيل بكندا حيث حصل على الدكتوراة في مجال الكمبيوتر العام 1983. عاد للقاهرة ليعمل كأستاذ مساعد ثم أستاذ مشارك ثم أستاذ لهندسة الحاسب الآلي حتى العام 1998 .

[عدل] إنجازات تكنولوجية
حظيت إنجازات الدكتور أحمد نظيف العلمية والأكاديمية على التقدير الذي نال عليه جائزة العلوم والفنون من الطبقة الأولى في مصر . تمتد خبرته في مجال تكنولوجيا المعلومات إلى مـا يزيد عن 30 عامـا . و شهدت هذه السنوات تقلده للعديد من المناصب الأكاديمية والوظيفيـة في القطاعين الحكومي والخاص، بالإضافة إلى نشاطه في إطار مؤسسات المجتمع المدني .

[عدل] مناصب
عمل كمدير لنظم المعلومات بين عامي 1985 – 1989 عمل كمدير تنفيذي لمركز المعلومات ودعم اتخاذ القرار بمجلس الوزراء بين عامي 1989 – 1996 . عمل كنائب لرئيس المجلس الاستشاري للمركز بين عامي 1996 – 1999

[عدل] الرقم القومي
وقد شهدت هذه المرحلة قيامه بالإشراف على تخطيط وتنفيذ العديد من البرامج والمشـروعات القومية، منها المشروع العملاق لتنفيذ الرقم القومي على مستوى مصر . شغل الدكتور نظيف أيضا منصب رئيس المجلس التنفيذي للمركز الإقليمي لتكنولوجيا المعلومات والذي قام أثناء توليه لرئاسته بتنفيذ مشروعات أخرى على المستوى الإقليمي .
عمل نظيف في العديد من الوظائف المتصلة بالقطاع الخاص أهمها رئيس مجلس إدارة شركة خدمات المعلومات التشريعية ومعلومات التنمية(LADIS) ورئيس شركة بنك المعلومات والبيانات وعضو مجلس إدارة شركة نظم المعلومات الطبية(MEDSYS)، وشركة مصر لمعلومات البناء والتشييد (MCBI) بالإضافة إلى ذلك يعتبر أحمد نظيف أحد مؤسسي جمعية الانترنت المصرية(ISE) وجمعية إدارة المعلومات (SIM) .

[عدل] د. نظيف والوزارة
شغل نظيف منصب أول وزير للاتصالات وتكنولوجيا المعلومات خـلال الفترة من 1999 إلى 2004 ، وذلك قبل توليه لمنصب رئيس الوزراء، حيث وضع إطارا لتحرير قطاع الاتصالات وتكنولوجيا المعلومات . و يعتبر هذا القطاع حاليا ضمن قطاعات الاقتصاد المصري الأكثر نموا.

[عدل] رئيسا للوزراء
تولى أحمد نظيف رئاسة مجلس الوزراء في مصر في يوليو 2004 . و وضع د. نظيف برنامجا للإصلاح الاقتصادي حيث تم تنفيذ عدد من الإصلاحات الاقتصادية تحت قيادته. وشملت إجراءات لتشجيع الاستثمار مثل تخفيض الضرائب والجمارك وتبسيـط إجـراءات تسجيل الشـركات واستقرار العملـة وتنشيط برنامج الخصخصة. وقد أسفرت هذه الإصلاحات عن زيادة معدل النمو ومضاعفة حجم الاستثمارات ثلاث مرات في عام واحد في المجالات غير البترولية. كلف في ديسمبر 2005، من قبل الرئيس مبارك بتشكيل حكومته الثانية التي دعيت للتركيز بشكل أكبر على البعد الاجتماعي من خلال تحسين الخدمات الاجتماعية في مجالات الصحة والتعليم والنقل والإسكان، لكنه ينتقد كذلك لعدم تمكن حكومته من السيطرة على الإرتفاع الكبير في الأسعار، كما لبطء حل حكومته لأزمة المخابز في 2008 . فقد صرح للصحف في بداية شهر مارس 2008 ان أزمة الطوابير في المخابز سوف تنتهي بعد ستة أسابيع فقامت جريدة المصري اليوم بعمل عداد زمنى لتلك الفترة لكن بقى الحال على ما هو عليه

د.أحمد نظيف رئيس مجلس الوزراء في مصر منذ 14 يوليو 2004 .
من مواليد مدينة الأسكندرية ولد في 8 يوليو العام 1952، هو رئيس وزراء مصري ويعتبر من التكنوقراط وهو أصغر رئيس وزراء في تاريخ مصر، وكان أحمد نظيف يتولى منصب وزير الاتصالات والمعلومات قبل توليه رئاسة الحكومة وهو حاصل على الدكتوراة من جامعة ماكاجيل في كندا العام 1982. تولى رئاسة الوزراء 14 يوليو 2004 بعد حكومة عاطف عبيد.
الدكتور نظيف واحد من أبناء الأسكندرية الذين أصبحوا بعد ذلك رؤساء وزراء مصر، ومنهم محمود فهمي النقراشي و إسماعيل صبري باشا وغيرهم . وهو أحد أعلام الأسكندرية الذين تفوقوا في مجال التكنولوجيا والبرمجيات وعلوم الحاسب الآلي والاتصالات .

حبيب العادلي

حبيب العادلي هو وزير الداخلية المصرى ولد في القاهرة في 1 مارس 1938 حصل على ليسانس الحقوق ودبلوم المواد الشرطية من كلية الشرطة في عام 1961.
الدورات التدريبية الحاصل عليها
1963م فرقة البحث الجنائى. 1966م فرقة البحث عن الجريمة "المركز القومى للبحوث الجنائية". 1966م فرقة تخصصية في مجال مباحث أمن الدولة. 1985م فرقة إدارة الأزمة من الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية.

[عدل] الجهات التى التحق للعمل بها
الأمن العام
إدارة مكافحة المخدرات.
1965 م جهاز مباحث أمن الدولة ، وتدرج حتى عين نائبا لرئيس الجهاز.
1982-1984م انتدب للعمل بوزارة الخارجية.

[عدل] المناصب التى تدرج بها
1993م الترقى إلى رتبة مساعد وزير الداخلية. مساعد أول وزير الداخلية لمنطقة القناة وسيناء . مساعد أول وزير الداخلية مدير أمن القاهرة. مساعد أول وزير الداخلية للأمن والمنطقة المركزية. 5/2/1996م عُين مساعداً أول لوزير الداخلية لجهاز مباحث أمن الدولة. 18/11/1997م عٌين وزيراً للداخلية خلفا لـ حسن الألفى . 10/10/1999م إعادة تجديد الثقة بمنصب وزير الداخلية. 17/7/2004م إعادة تجديد الثقة بمنصب وزير الداخلية.

[عدل] الأنواط الحاصل عليها
1986م مُنح نوط الامتياز من السيد رئيس الجمهورية. 1997م مُنح نوط الامتياز من السيد رئيس الجمهورية

وزارة الداخلية المصرية

وزارة الداخلية المصرية بدأت في عام 1805 عندما انشأ محمد علي باشا ديوان باسم ديوان الوالي لضبط الأمن في القاهرة و في 25 فبراير 1857 عرف ما يسمى نظارة الداخلية ثم تحولت إلي وزارة ورأسها أول وزير داخلية وهو تحسين باشا رشدي، ويرئسها الآن حبيب العادلي
نص الدستور المصري علي مهام وزارة الداخلية أن الشرطة المصرية هيئة مدنية نظامية رئيسها الأعلى رئيس الجمهورية وتؤدى الشرطة واجبها في خدمة الشعب وتكفل للمواطنين الطمأنينة والأمن وتسهر على حفظ النظام والأمن العام والآداب، وتتولى تنفيذ ما تعرضه عليها القوانين واللوائح من واجبات وذلك كله على الوجه المبين بالقانون.
تمتلك وزارة الداخلية قوات شبه عسكرية تعرف بالأمن المركزي مهمتها الحفاظ على الأمن في الحوادث الخطيرة وأعمال الشغب، والأمن المركزي يجند به الأشخاص الخاضعين للتجنيد العسكري. من الممكن أن تدخل القوات المسلحة في حالة الفشل

جهاز مباحث أمن الدولة

جهاز مباحث أمن الدولة هو جهاز مخابرات مصري، يتبع وزارة الداخلية. أنشئ الجهاز في عهد الرئيس المصري السابق محمد أنور السادات. و رئيس الجهاز الحالي هو اللواء حسن عبد الرحمن.
وقد تم اصدار قانون الطوارئ خصيصا لهذا الجهاز. هذا القانون يتيح سلطات معينه مثل القبض على اى شخص في اى مكان ولاى مده دون ابداء الاسباب بدون محاكمه
و يقع مقر الجهاز الرئيسى في شارع الأزهر بحى مدينة نصر. و يمتلك الجهاز صلاحيات و اسعة و يحظى بدعم كبير من رئيس الجمهورية و وزير الداخلية، و بصورة عامة فاختصاصاته هى حماية أمن الدولة من المخربين و الإرهابيين، و لكن تعريف المخربين و المهربين قد يختلف، لذلك فقد صار الاهتمام الأكبر للجهاز هو إضعاف المعارضة السياسية بكل صورها و أشكالها و العمل على حماية النظام السياسى المصرى القائم في الأساس على السلطة المطلقة لرئيس الجمهورية. هذا، و يتمتع أفراد الجهاز بتميز خاص فوق كل ضباط الداخلية و رئيس الجهاز هو دائما مرشح جاهز لمنصب وزير الداخلية. و الجهاز باعتباره هيئة تنفيذية خاصة، يتمتع أيضا بنيابة خاصة، و هى نيابة أمن الدولة، و بعدها هناك محكمة أمن الدولة جنح (طوارئ) و هى محكمة استثنائية لا يجوز الطعن في أحكامها بموجب قانون الطوارئ

من ويكيبيديا، الموسوعة الحرة

Télé sur iPhone : simple ou pas, abordable ou trop cher ?

"C'est très simple". Telle est la réponse obtenue à la fois chez Orange et SFR à la question "combien cela coûte-t-il pour regarder la télévision sur mon iPhone?".
Très simple ? Sur le papier, oui. Encore faut-il se renseigner.Trois formules existent chez Orange. Un forfait dédié d'abord, l'Origami Star sur lequel les anciens clients peuvent basculer sans réengagement, promet-on. Il démarre à partir de 42 euros par mois (1h de communication+1 heure le soir, avec SMS, Internet et TV illimitée). Ce forfait va jusqu'à 95 euros par mois.
Pour ceux qui ne veulent pas changer de forfait, notamment parce que le leur a été souscrit à l'occasion de la sortie de séries limitées avantageuses, deux options leur sont ouvertes : payer 6 euros par mois en plus de leur forfait afin d'accéder à 20 chaînes de télévision ou bien 9 euros par mois pour 60 chaînes. L'une et l'autre option permettant également une consommation illimitée.
Pour les clients iPhone qui ne souhaitent prendre ni forfait ni option dédiés, la télévision reste possible hors forfait. Soit avec une facturation à la session coûtant 0,5 euro par session de 20 minutes ou bien une facturation au volume revenant à payer 1,80 euro par minute.....
SFR qui propose déjà l'accès sur d'autres terminaux via les forfaits illymithics (dont TV illimitée) a néanmoins dû en mettre un nouveau sur le marché spécialement dédié : illymithics iPhone en raison de ses conditions d'accès (téléchargement de l'application via la plateforme AppStore tandis que pour les autres smartphone, l'accès se fait via le portail Vodafone Live).
Ce forfait est proposé à partir de 41,90 euros par mois (1 heure + appels illimités vers 3 numéros SFR ou 1h de 18h à 8h+ Week-end). Il faudra cependant débourser 8 euros de plus qu'un forfait illymithics classique. Contrairement à Orange, le fonctionnement de l'application en Wi-fi est non seulement possible mais inclus.
Pas si compliqué en effet à condition toutefois d'être correctement informé. Orange estime remplir ces conditions (courrier, site Internet, service client,..). Idem chez SFR . Tous deux s'étonnent et s'agacent même face au déferlement de critiques concernant des montants de facture exorbitants dont les forums sur le Net se font largement l'écho depuis mardi.
Qu'en est-il pour vous, client ou intéressé par ce service? Etes-vous suffisamment mis en garde par les opérateurs contre les dérapages de facturation ?
Autre motif de mécontentement: le prix des offres permettant d'accéder à la télévision sur l'iPhone. D'autant que les forfaits qui n'incluent pas cette possibilité contiennent pour la plus part un accès illimité à la télévision. Certains utilisateurs ont donc l'impression d'être pris pour des vaches à lait, estimant que les opérateurs profitent du succès grandissant du smartphone d'Apple pour faire gonfler leurs marges.
Et vous, êtes-vous prêt à payer entre 6 et 9 euros de plus par mois pour pouvoir regarder la télévision sur votre iPhone ? Trouvez-vous ce prix justifié ? Donnez votre réponse ci-dessous dans l'espace commentaire.

QUE DIT LE SAINT CORAN DE MARIE ET DE JESUS?

Mentionne, dans le Livre (le Coran), Marie, quand elle se retira de sa famille en un lieu vers l' Orient.
Elle mit entre elle et eux un voile. Nous lui envoyâmes Notre Esprit (Gabriel), qui se présenta à elle sous la forme d' un homme parfait.
Elle dit: "Je me réfugie contre toi auprès du Tout Miséricordieux. Si tu es pieux, (ne m' approche point)."
Il dit: "Je suis en fait un Messager de ton Seigneur pour te faire don d' un fils pur".
Elle dit: "Comment aurais- je un fils, quand aucun homme ne m' a touchée, et que je ne suis pas prostituée?"
Il dit: "Ainsi sera- t- il! Cela M' est facile, a dit ton Seigneur! Et Nous ferons de lui un signe pour les gens, et une miséricorde de Notre part. C' est une affaire déjà décidée".
Elle devint donc enceinte (de l' enfant), et elle se retira avec lui en un lieu éloigné.
Puis les douleurs de l' enfantement l' amenèrent au tronc du palmier, et elle dit: "Malheur à moi! Que je fusse morte avant cet instant! Et que je fusse totalement oubliée!"
Alors, il l' appela d' au-dessous d' elle, (lui disant:) "Ne t' afflige pas. Ton Seigneur a placé à tes pieds une source.
Secoue vers toi le tronc du palmier: il fera tomber sur toi des dattes fraîches et mûres.
Mange donc et bois et que ton œil se réjouisse! Si tu vois quelqu'un d' entre les humains, dis (lui:) "Assurément, j' ai voué un jeûne au Tout Miséricordieux: je ne parlerai donc aujourd'hui à aucun être humain".
Puis elle vint auprès des siens en le portant (le bébé). Ils dirent: "Ô Marie, tu as fait une chose monstrueuse!
"Sœur de Hâroûn, ton père n' était pas un homme de mal et ta mère n' était pas une prostituée".
Elle fit alors un signe vers lui (le bébé). Ils dirent: "Comment parlerions- nous à un bébé au berceau?"
Mais (le bébé) dit: "Je suis vraiment le serviteur d' Allah. Il m' a donné le Livre et m' a désigné Prophète.
Où que je sois, Il m' a rendu béni; et Il m' a recommandé, tant que je vivrai, la prière et la Zakâ;
et la bonté envers ma mère. Il ne m' a fait ni violent ni malheureux.
Et que la paix soit sur moi le jour où je naquis, le jour où je mourrai, et le jour où je serai ressuscité vivant."
Tel est Issa - (Jésus), fils de Marie: parole de vérité dont ils doutent.
Il ne convient pas à Allah de S' attribuer un fils. Gloire et Pureté à Lui! Quand Il décide d' une chose, Il dit seulement: "Sois!" et elle est.
Certes, Allah est mon Seigneur tout comme votre Seigneur. Adorez- le donc. Voilà un droit chemin".
(par la suite,) les sectes divergèrent entre elles. Alors, malheur aux mécréants lors de la vue d' un jour terrible!
Comme ils entendront et verront bien le jour où ils viendront à Nous! Mais aujourd'hui, les injustes sont dans un égarement évident.
Et avertis- les du jour du Regret, quand tout sera réglé; alors qu' ils sont (dans ce monde) inattentifs et qu' ils ne croient pas.
C' est Nous, en vérité, qui hériterons la terre et tout ce qui s' y trouve, et c' est à Nous qu' ils seront ramenés.

Dis: "O gens du Livre, venez à une parole commune entre nous et vous: que nous n' adorions qu' Allah, sans rien Lui associer, et que nous ne prenions point les uns les autres pour seigneurs en dehors d' Allah". Puis, s' ils tournent le dos, dites: "Soyez témoins que nous, nous sommes soumis".

QU'EST CE QUE LE CORAN ?

Le mot arabe Al-Qour'an (le Coran en français) signifie littéralement La récitation. Utilisé dans le contexte de l'Islam, le mot Qour'an peut ainsi prendre la signification suivante : "Le dernier message de Dieu à l'humanité révélé au prophète Mouhammad (1)". En effet, le Coran est la parole de Dieu et sert de guide aux êtres humains :
Sourate 5, Verset 16
"Par ceci (le Coran), Dieu guide au chemin du salut ceux qui cherchent son agrément. Et il les fait sortir des ténèbres à la lumière par Sa grâce. Et Il les guide vers un droit chemin."
Cet oeuvre a été parfaitement préservée tant au niveau de la forme qu'à celui de son sens, et ce, dans une langue encore pratiquée de nos jours, l'arabe. Le Coran est un miracle vivant, le miracle ultime : il demeure inimitable dans son style, sa forme et son impact spirituel.
Le Coran a été révélé au prophète Mouhammad (1) sur une période de 23 années. Il est et a toujours été vu comme la parole de Dieu par ceux qui croient en lui. Cette œuvre a été au cours de sa révélation prêchée et récitée en public, aussi bien devant des musulmans que des gens qui n'étaient pas de confession musulmane (juifs, chrétiens, polythéistes, athées, etc.). De plus, le Coran a été entièrement écrit durant la vie du prophète. Divers supports ont été utilisés pour cela : ossement, peau, tissu, etc. C'est seulement après l'arrivée du troisième Calife 'Outhman (Que Dieu l'agréé) qu'il a été entièrement compilé pour former un véritable livre. De nombreux compagnons du prophète l'ont mémorisé mot par mot, tel qu'il avait été révélé, et aujourd'hui encore, des milliers de croyants le connaissent par cœur et en sont les gardiens, Hafiz-al-Qour'an.
Le Coran se veut une écriture universelle, adressée à toute l'humanité et non à un peuple élu ou à une tribu. Le message qu'il apporte est essentiellement le même que ceux qui ont été révélés aux autres prophètes de l'Islam. Tous reposent sur la phrase : "Il n'y a d'autre divinité que Dieu.". Ce message est bien sûr présent dans le Coran, ainsi que de nombreuses choses : des règles de vie, des faits scientifiques, l'histoire de nombreux prophètes, etc. le tout dans un style inimitable. Pour tout ceux qui ont soif de connaissance, de savoir et de vérité, le Coran est Le Guide par excellence!
Sourate 42, Verset 52-53
"Et c'est ainsi que Nous t'avons révélé un esprit (le Coran) provenant de notre ordre. Tu n'avais aucune connaissance du Livre ni de la foi ; mais Nous en avons fait une lumière par laquelle Nous guidons qui Nous voulons parmi Nos serviteurs. Et en vérité, tu guides vers un chemin droit, Le chemin de Dieu à Qui appartient ce qui est dans les cieux et ce qui est sur la terre. Oui, c'est à Dieu que s'acheminent toutes les choses."
(1) : Que la Paix et le Salut soient sur lui.

COMMENT DEVIENT-ON MUSULMAN(E)?

Simplement en disant ceci: “il n’y a pas de dieu à part Dieu (Allah en arabe) et Mohammad est le messager de Dieu”. Par cette déclaration, le croyant affirme sa foi en tous les autres messagers de Dieu ainsi qu’en toutes les Écritures par eux apportées

LA NOTION DE DIEU EN ISLAM

Nous savons que, dans chaque langue, il existe un ou plusieurs termes utilisés pour se référer à Dieu et dans certains cas, à d’autres divinités. Ce n’est pas le cas pour Allah. En effet, Allah est le nom spécifique du Seul Vrai Dieu. Rien d’autre ne peut s’appeler Allah. Ce nom n’a ni pluriel ni genre. Ceci démontre son caractère unique, notamment lorsqu’on le compare avec le mot "dieu", qui peut s’exprimer au pluriel - des dieux - ou au féminin - déesse -. Il convient à noter qu’Allah est le nom qui désigne dieu en araméen, qui était la langue de Jésus, et qui s’apparente à l’arabe.
Le seul vrai Dieu est un reflet de la seule notion que l’Islam associe à Dieu. Pour un musulman, Allah est Le Tout-Puissant, Créateur et Soutien de l’univers: Il ne ressemble à rien et rien ne peut lui ressembler. Le prophète Mohammad (sallallâhou alayhi wa sallam) fut questionné par ses contemporains à propos d’Allah; la réponse lui fut dictée par Dieu Lui-même sous la forme d’une courte sourate du Coran qui considérée comme l’essence même de l’unité monothéiste. Cette sourate dit:
“Au nom d'Allah, le Tout Miséricordieux, le Très Miséricordieux. 1. Dis: ‹Il est Allah, Unique. 2. Allah, Le Seul à être imploré pour ce que nous désirons. 3. Il n'a jamais engendré, n'a pas été engendré non plus. 4. Et nul n'est égal à Lui›. ”
(Sourate 112, versets 1-4).
Certains non-musulmans prétendent que le Dieu de l’Islam est un Dieu sévère et cruel, exigeant d’être pleinement obéi. Ils prétendent qu’Il n’est pas tendre ni bienveillant. Rien n’est plus faux que cette affirmation. En fait, il suffit de savoir que chacune des 114 sourates du Coran, à une exception près, commencent par le verset suivant: “Au nom d’Allah, Le Tout Miséricordieux, Le Très Miséricordieux”. Le Prophète Mohammad (sallallâhou alayhi wa sallam) a dit que:
“Dieu est plus tendre et plus bienveillant qu’une mère envers son fils bien-aimé”.
Cependant, Dieu est également Juste. C’est pourquoi les méchants et les pécheurs doivent avoir leur part du châtiment, et les vertueux se verront accorder Ses dons et Sa grâce. En fait, la clémence comme attribut divin se manifeste pleinement dans l’attribut de la Justice. Ceux qui souffrent tout au long de leur vie pour l’amour de Dieu et ceux qui oppriment et exploitent les autres doivent-ils recevoir le même traitement de la part de leur Seigneur ?
S’attendre à un traitement semblable reviendrait à nier la responsabilité de l’homme dans la vie future et, de ce fait, nier toute incitation à mener une vie morale et vertueuse en ce monde. les versets coraniques ci-dessous sont clairs et sans ambiguïté à cet égard:
“Les pieux auront auprès de leur Seigneur les Jardins du délice. Traiterons-Nous les soumis [à Allah] à la manière des criminels? Qu’avez-vous? Comment jugez-vous?” (Sourate 68, versets 34-36).
L’Islam rejette toute représentation de Dieu sous une forme humaine quelle qu’elle soit, pouvant avantager certains individus ou certaines nations, sur la bas de la richesse, du pouvoir ou de la race, Il a créé tous les êtres humains égaux. Ils peuvent cependant se distinguer eux-mêmes et gagner Sa grâce uniquement par la vertu et la piété.
La notion qui veut que Dieu se repose le septième jour, que Dieu ait combattu un de Ses soldats, que Dieu ait une attitude de conspiration et d’envie à l’égard de l’humanité, ou que Dieu soit incarné dans un être humain, quel qu’il soit, est considérée comme un blasphème du point de vue de l’Islam.
L’utilisation exclusive du nom d’Allah pour désigner Dieu reflète l’accent mis par l’Islam sur la pureté de la croyance en Dieu, ce qui constitue l’essence du message de tous les envoyés de Dieu. C’est pour cela que l’Islam considère le fait d’associer une divinité ou une personnalité quelconque à Dieu comme un péché mortel que Dieu ne pourrait jamais pardonner, même s’Il peut pardonner tous les autres péchés.
Le Créateur doit avoir une nature différente de celles des choses qu’Il a créées, car s’Il était de même nature que celles-ci, Il serait d’essence temporelle, et donc Lui-même créé par quelqu’un d’autre. Il s’en suit qu’Il n’a point d’égal. Si le Créateur n’est pas d’essence temporelle, il faut alors qu’Il soit éternel. Mais, s’Il est éternel Il n’a pu être engendré par aucun principe, et si rien n’a présidé à sa venue, rien en dehors de Lui n’est à l’origine de son existence, ce qui signifie qu’Il est son propre principe. Et si la continuité de son existence ne dépend de rien en dehors de Lui, cette existence ne peut avoir aucune limite. Le Créateur est ainsi éternel et perpétuel:
“C’est Lui Le Premier et Le Dernier” (Sourate 57, verset 3)
Il se suffit à Lui-même. Et subsiste par Lui-même, ou bien pour employer le terme coranique, Il est “Al-Qayyoum”. Le Créateur ne crée pas uniquement dans le sens de faire que les choses soient, mais Il les protège également et les enlève à la vie temporelle, et Il est la cause ultime de tout ce qui leur advient.
“Allah est le Créateur de toute chose, et de toute chose Il est Garant. Il détient les clefs des cieux et de la terre” (Sourate 39, versets 62-63)
“Il n’y a point de bête sur terre dont la subsistance n’incombe à Allah qui connaît son gîte et son dépôt” (Sourate 11, verset 6)
Pas de spéculation théologique: ce qui intéresse le musulman c'est la science de l’unicité de Dieu (le Tawhid) et des attributs de Dieu, mais jamais Sa Nature. Le croyant ne se pose pas de questions sur l’essence de Dieu, comment un être fini peut-il appréhender l’infini? Le croyant par contre recherche, reconnaît, et rend grâce aux attributs de Dieu, à Ses bienfaits et à Sa manifestation dans sa vie et autour de lui. L’essence de Dieu nous est inconnue, celui qui s’évertue dans une recherche sur cette voie, s’enferme forcément dans une pensée spéculative pavée de postulats; et le dogmatisme est étranger au concept de Dieu en Islam. Cette recherche est vaine depuis que l’Homme existe!
Les attributs de DieuSi le Créateur est éternel et perpétuel, ses attributs doivent être, eux aussi, éternels et perpétuels. Il ne doit perdre aucun de Ses attributs, ni en acquérir d’autres. C’est ainsi que Ses attributs sont absolus.
Peut-il exister plus d’un Créateur avec de tels attributs? Peut-il y avoir, par exemple, deux Créateurs d’une puissance absolue?
Il suffit d’un moment de réflexion pour se rendre compte que cela n’est guère possible. Le Coran résume cet argument comme suit:
“Allah ne S’est point attribué d’enfant et il n’existe point de divinité avec Lui; sinon, chaque divinité s’en irait avec ce qu’elle a créé, et certains seraient supérieurs aux autres” (Sourate 23, verset 91)
“S’il y avait dans le ciel et la terre des divinités autres qu’Allah, tous deux seraient certes dans le désordre” (Sourate 21, verset 22)
L’unicité de DieuLe Coran nous rappelle que tous les dieux prétendus tels sont de faux dieux. Aux adorateurs des objets fabriqués par l’homme, il est demandé:
“Adorez-vous ce que vous-mêmes sculptez, alors que c’est Allah qui vous a créé, vous et ce que vous fabriquez?” (Sourate 37, versets 95-96)
“Dis: “Qui est le Seigneur des cieux et de la terre? “ Dis: “Allah”. Dis: “Et prendrez-vous en dehors de Lui, des maîtres qui ne détiennent pour eux-mêmes ni bien ni mal?” Dis: “Sont-ils égaux, l’aveugle et celui qui voit? Ou sont-elles égales, les ténèbres et la lumière? Ou donnent-ils à Allah des associés qui créent comme Sa création au point que les deux créations se soient confondues à eux? Dis: “Allah est le Créateur de toute chose, et c’est Lui L’Unique, Le Dominateur suprême”” (Sourate 13, verset 16)
L’attitude d’un croyantPour être musulman, c’est à dire pour se soumettre à Dieu, il est nécessaire de croire à l’unicité de Dieu, en ce sens qu’Il est le seul Créateur, Sauveur, Nourricier, etc. Cependant cette croyance, appelée plus tard "Tawhid Arrouboubbiyyah", n’est guère suffisante. Nombreux étaient les idolâtres qui savaient et croyaient que seul le Dieu suprême pouvait être tout cela. Ceci ne suffisait pourtant pas à faire d’eux des musulmans. À l’expression "Tawhid Arrouboubbiyyah", il faudrait ajouter celle qui dit "Tawhid Al-oulouhiyah", c’est à dire que Dieu seul mérite qu’on Lui rende un culte, il faut par conséquent s’abstenir de vénérer toute autre chose ou tout autre être.
Une fois acquise cette connaissance de l’existence d’un seul, vrai Dieu, l’homme doit maintenir (constamment) sa confiance en Lui, et doit éviter tout ce qui l’entraînerait à nier la vérité.
Du moment que la foi est entrée dans le cœur d’une personne, elle va créer certains états d’esprits qui auront pour résultat certains actes. Si l’on considère comme un tout ces états d’esprit et ces actes, cela va constituer une preuve de la véritable foi. Le Prophète (sallallâhou alayhi wa sallam) a dit: “La foi est ce qui demeure fermement dans le cœur et qui est prouvé par les actes”. D’ailleurs, ces états d’esprit sont le sentiment de gratitude envers Dieu, ce qui pourrait être considéré comme l’essence du culte "Al-’ibada".
Le sentiment de gratitude est si important, qu’un non-croyant est appelé "Kafir", ce qui veut dire: “celui qui nie la vérité” et aussi: “celui qui n’est pas reconnaissant”.
Le croyant aime Dieu, et Lui est reconnaissant de toutes les bontés qu’Il lui a prodiguées. Cependant, étant conscient du fait que ses bonnes actions, qu’elles soient mentales ou physiques sont loin de pouvoir se comparer aux faveurs de Dieu, il sera toujours anxieux de savoir si Dieu le punira ici, sur terre, ou dans l’au-delà. Par conséquent il va Le craindre, se soumettre à Lui et Le servir en toute humilité. Il n’est pas possible de se maintenir dans une telle attitude sans avoir, pratiquement sans cesse, la pensée de Dieu présente à l’esprit. La pensée de Dieu constitue ainsi la véritable force de la foi qui, sans cela, dépérirait et s’évanouirait.
Le Coran essaie de faire ressortir ce sentiment de gratitude par la répétition fréquente des attributs divins. Un grand nombre de ces attributs apparaissent dans les versets ci-dessous:
“ C’est Lui Allah. Nulle divinité autre que Lui, Le Connaisseur de l’Invisible tout comme du visible. C’est Lui, Le Tout Miséricordieux, Le Très Miséricordieux. C’est Lui Allah. Nulle divinité autre que Lui; Le Souverain, Le Pur, L’Apaisant, Le Rassurant, Le Prédominant, Le Tout Puissant, Le Contraignant, L’Orgueilleux. Gloire à Allah! Il transcende ce qu’ils Lui associent. C’est Lui Allah, Le Créateur, Celui qui donne un commencement à toute chose, Le Formateur. À Lui les plus beaux noms. Tout ce qui est dans les cieux et la terre Le glorifie. C’est Lui Le Puissant, Le Sage” (Sourate 59, versets 22-24)
“Allah! Point de divinité à part Lui, Le Vivant, Celui qui subsiste par lui-même. Ni somnolence ni sommeil ne Le saisissent. À Lui appartient tout ce qui est dans les cieux et sur la terre. Qui peut intercéder auprès de Lui sans Sa permission? Il connaît leur passé et leur futur. Et, de Sa science, ils n’embrassent que ce qu’Il veut. Son Trône déborde les cieux et la terre, dont la garde ne Lui coûte aucune peine. Et Il est le Très Haut, le Très Grand” (Sourate 2, verset 255)
“Allah n’est qu’un Dieu unique. Il est trop glorieux pour avoir un enfant. C’est à Lui qu’appartient tout ce qui est dans les cieux et sur la terre et Allah suffit comme protecteur” (Sourate 4, verset 171)
Wa Allâhou A'lam ! (Et Dieu est Plus Savant !)
(Source: Brochure de la série "WAMY" sur l'Islam, Site: La Page de l'Islam)

How Many Democrats Will Stand Up Against Obama's Bloated Military Budget?

By JEREMY SCAHILL
Much of the media attention this week on President Obama’s new military budget has put forward a false narrative wherein Obama is somehow taking his socialist/pacifist sledgehammer to the Pentagon’s war machine and blasting it to smithereens. Republicans have charged that Obama is endangering the country’s security, while the Democratic leadership has hailed it as the dawn of a new era in responsible spending priorities. Part of this narrative portrays Defense Secretary Robert Gates as standing up to the war industry, particularly military contractors.
The reality is that all of this is false.
Here is an undeniable fact: Obama is substantially increasing US military spending, by at least $21 billion from Bush-era levels, including a significant ratcheting up of Afghanistan war spending, as well as more money for unmanned attack drones, which are increasingly being used in attacks on Pakistan. (David Swanson over at AfterDowningStreet.org does a great job of breaking down some of the media coverage of this issue across the political spectrum).
Obama’s budget of $534 billion to the Department of Defense “represents roughly a 4-percent increase over the $513 billion allocated to the Pentagon in FY2009 under the Bush administration, and $6.7 billion more than the outgoing administration’s projections for FY 2010,” bragged Lawrence Korb, author of the Center for American Progress’ report supporting Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan, in an article called, ” Obama’s Defense Budget Is on Target.”
Obama and his neoliberal think tankers clearly didn’t think much of Rep. Barney Frank’s call earlier this year to cut military spending by 25% to pay for urgently needed social programs and economic aid to struggling Americans. “To accomplish his goals of expanding health care and other important quality of life services without ballooning the deficit,” Frank said, Obama needed to reduce military spending. “If we do not get military spending under control, we will not be able to respond to important domestic needs.” Well, not only is overall military spending on the rise, but Obama is about to ask for billions more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a “supplemental” spending bill, the type which were staples in Bush’s campaign to mask of the full military budget and total cost of the wars. Obama could seek the funding as early as Thursday.
Now, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that we may actually see some spine coming from Congress in standing up to Obama’s request for this additional $75.5 billion in war funds. The WSJ characterized the situation as one of “raising tensions” between Obama and some lawmakers opposed to the wars. It should be noted off-the-bat that the Congresspeople speaking out are, predictably, members of the usual suspects club and the Democratic leadership is probably at this moment sharing cocktails in the backroom with McCain and McConnell, but, nonetheless, it is worth examining what is being said:
“I can’t imagine any way I’d vote for it,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House.
Ms. Woolsey fears the president’s plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. “I don’t think we should be going there,” she said.
Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. “I just have this sinking feeling that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end,” he said.
Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama’s plans as “embarrassingly naive,” and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. “He’s the smartest man in American politics today,” Rep. Conyers said. “But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances.”
Obama has vowed to break with the Bush-era tradition of seeking such supplementals to fund the war, saying that beginning in 2010 he will fund the wars as part of his overall budget. The anti-war caucus of Democrats is unlikely to have enough votes to block it given the increasingly overt pro-war nature of the Democratic leadership. And, as the WSJ notes, the funding bills are likely to pass “since many Republicans will support them.”
An interesting point nestled half-way through the WSJ piece illustrates a point some antiwar activists have been making since Obama’s election—he is likely to win increased support from Democratic lawmakers for wars they may not have supported when Bush was in power:
The president argues that Afghanistan has been neglected, allowing al Qaeda to regroup and exposing the U.S. to new dangers.
Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.) suggests Democrats may be less inclined to joust with the current White House on the issue than they were with former President George W. Bush. “We have somebody that Democrats feel will level with them,” said Mr. Larson, the House’s fourth-ranking Democrat.
This truly is one of the most important trends to watch with the Obama presidency, particularly as it relates to war policy. Obama is in a position to greatly advance the interests of empire, precisely because he is able to build much wider support for policies that are essentially a continuation of those implemented by Bush.
Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.His new website is RebelReports.com

Resurrection and Revenge

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
"I am the resurrection and the life,” Jesus assured Martha, adding that though her brother Lazarus was dead, “yet shall he live.”
“Lord, by this time he stinketh, for he hath been dead four days” Martha says nervously.
To which Jesus responds, “Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” So, according to St John’s Gospel, it came to pass. “He that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, ’Loose him, and let him go.’”
On March 18 Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, had his opportunity to raise the dead and bring them back to life. This was the day he signed a law, already ratified by the State Senate and House, formally ending New Mexico’s death penalty.
Did Richardson ennoble this solemn occasion by endorsing the idea that all human life has value, and even those who have fallen into the lowest moral abyss are capable of redemption? Did he cite Holy Scripture as buttress for such thoughts? He did not.
Richardson festooned the signing with language about this being the “most difficult decision” of his political life, arrived at only after he had toured the maximum-security unit where offenders sentenced to life without parole would be held. “My conclusion was those cells are something that may be worse than death,” he said. “I believe this is a just punishment.”
Lest anyone be under the misapprehension that the governor was endorsing some quaint notion that all human life has value, the governor was at pains to emphasize that since the new law comes into force only on July 1, the two condemned men currently residing on Death Row in New Mexico still face execution.
For Richardson the flaw with the death penalty lies in its imperfection. “Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe.” Embalmed in this self-serving verbiage are many pointers to how seriously the whole cause of death-penalty abolition has gone off the rails, fleeing the arduous moral battleground where Revenge tilts against Redemption for the low-lying pastures of Efficiency.
With the death penalty, irreversible mistakes bring the whole justice system into well-deserved disrepute. But of course the state has a ready answer, one conveniently cued for them by the abolitionists who have set the stage for the state to offer its substitute: life without the possibility of parole (LWOP)—living death or, in Richardson’s creepy phrase, something “worse than death.”
Also recruited into the abolitionists’ arguments for efficiency have been pragmatic calculations that the death penalty is simply too expensive. It costs a ton of money, particularly in a state like California, to fight a death penalty case through the courts and the appeals process, pay for prosecutors and defenders to amass the data and the witnesses for the post-verdict penalty phases of the trial, get someone onto death row in San Quentin and then fight further endless battles over habeas corpus writs, stays of execution and so forth.
New Mexico’s lawmakers were bolstered by this rationale of cost-effectiveness. A cost assessment report pointed to the fact that in one case, State v. Young, the public defender office put up $1.7 million to defend Young. Add in costs for the prosecutors and the courts and the bill soared to nearly $6 million. In that instance, the state Supreme Court barred the state from pursuing the death penalty further because insufficient resources were being provided for the defense.
Bill Clinton did his best to speed up the conveyor belt by signing the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. But it’s still a hugely expensive hassle to line things up so lethal injection can proceed. Against all this, what’s brisker than the offer of LWOP as part of a plea bargain? Sign on the dotted line. Pack the prisoner off to a concrete box and throw away the key. As the Dallas Morning News editorialized in support of LWOP for Texas, which is considering whether to abandon the costly death penalty in favor of confinement unto death: “It’s harsh. It’s just. And it’s final without being irreversible. Call it a living death.”
The pendulum is swinging against the death penalty. DNA evidence -- posthumously exonerating some, clearing others waiting to die –has been a big factor in waning enthusiasm for the ultimate sanction. The current total of defendants on state and federal death rows is 3,307. Fifteen states don’t have the death penalty, New Mexico being the most recent.
Nothing much is going to change in New Mexico, except for the worse. The state has only formally executed one man since 1960: Terry Clark, a child-killer, had his appointment with the lethal needle in 2001 after abandoning further appeals. This number may soon swell to three because the two men whose situation I note above. Presumably their chances of commutation have diminished, since no one wants to be accused of giving killers anything resembling a lucky break.
Meanwhile, the number of convicted people drawing the “living death” card will go up, as juries will likely find it easier to sentence defendants to living death—LWOP—with less worry about the irreversibility of a mistaken death sentence. There’s much less money available in states like California to fight imprisonment with parole than there is for the death penalty. Hence the paradox: someone condemned to death may have a better chance – in terms of access to the appeals process and high-price legal artillery – of reversal than someone fighting to get commutation of life imprisonment without hope of parole.
When I drive south to the Bay Area, I pass San Quentin, where 667 prisoners sit on Death Row. In the very unlikely event they get executed, they will have waited an average of 17.5 years from the moment they were condemned. Thirteen people have been executed in California since the US Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976. When I drive from Crescent City, at the northwest corner of California, with its terrifying supermax Pelican Bay prison, down Highway 101, jog over to Redding and head south on Interstate 5 to Los Angeles, I traverse a Gulag Archipelago in which thousands of prisoners are serving decade upon decade of hard time, with hundreds of them in solitary confinement, often for years on end. Yet it is the situation of the 667 that elicits maybe 98 percent of the energies of reformers.
How many prisoners nationally are under sentence of “living death”? The Sentencing Project, a non-profit organization based in Washington DC, says there were 33,633 people serving life sentences without parole in the United States in 2003, which is 26.3 percent of the total number of people serving life sentences. The analyst at the Sentencing Project discloses that they have tried to determine how many people are effectively serving life sentences without parole (i.e., life plus extra years), but that it’s been a nightmare to do so. They don’t even have a ballpark estimate. There are at least 73 U.S. inmates -- most of them minorities -- who were sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison for crimes committed when they were 13 or 14.
The irony is that a moral debate is finally in motion over America’s horrifying sentencing laws. In New York State, the Rockefeller drug laws, which destroyed so many thousands of lives with mandatory sentencing, are being modified. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is courageously trying to coax into life a national commission to review the criminal justice system. Webb tells the Washington Post that cops and prosecutors often target the wrong people and says he believes society can be made safer while making the system more “humane and cost-effective.” He flourishes a fine piece by Atul Gawande in the March 30 issue of The New Yorker stigmatizing solitary confinement (“at least twenty-five thousand inmates in isolation in supermax prisons”) as torture.
Humane! Now there’s a novel word. Maybe the notion of prison time as a path to redemption for murderers and pickpockets will creep through a crevice in the wall of prejudice that shields the national and political posture on crime and punishment.
This posture goes back to the very origins of the Republic. It was Tocqueville who lauded American penology, in the book he wrote with Gustave de Beaumont, On The Penitentiary System and who wrote in a letter in 1836, “Isolate the detainees in prison by means of solitary cells, subject them to absolute silence… prohibit every communication between souls and minds as between their bodies; that is what I would consider the first principle of the science [of prisons]. ”As Professor Sheldon Wolin writes in his Tocqueville Between Two Worlds, this was a theory of “total control…‘pure’ power and wholly opposite to the unlimited space, frenzied time and near anarchical subjects of Democracy.” The prison that Tocqueville and Beaumont particularly admired was Auburn, with its system of penitential solitary confinement developed by the Quakers, partly advanced as… a substitute for the death penalty, which they opposed on principle.
A Single Shoe Can Start a Prairie Fire
On Thursday CounterPuncher P. Sainath filed from Mumbai his exclusive report, The Rise of the Shoe-cide Bomber. “When Muntader al-Zaidi hurled one shoe then another at George Bush in Baghdad last year,” Sainath wrote, “he couldn’t have foreseen the fallout. Doubtless inspired by the Iraqi journalist, Jarnail Singh, a veteran Delhi reporter, tossed his shoe -- a solid Reebok trainer -- at Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram. Jarnail works for the Hindi newspaper, dainik jagran (The Daily Awakening). For the Home Minister, it was a rude awakening. Jarnail Singh was miffed with the Congress Party for fielding two tainted candidates from parliamentary constituencies in Delhi in our ongoing national elections.The two, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar, are tainted by allegations of having participated in the anti-Sikh violence that followed the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1984. That violence remains one of the ugliest chapters in independent India’s history.”
Now Sainath reports that Jarnail Singh’s shoe-salvo paid off.“Shoo for two -- Jarnail Singh’s shoe finally strikes home! The Congress Party has given both the tainted candidates -- a real pair of heels -- the boot following major protests by Sikhs and others sparked off by Singh’s shoe saga. The two will now not contest the polls and are hobbled, their laces having been tied together.
“It's catching on and we could now see an epidemic. As news trickled in of Jarnail Singh's victory, a retired school teacher in Haryana who looks to be in his sixties, threw his footwear at Naveen Jindal one of the richest candidates in the fray in that state. He was hustled out by Jindal's supporters, but the writing is one the wall - there will be more shoes in the air. Watch this space.”
Don’t try the shoe routine here. That would be true shoe-cide. If the cops on the scene didn’t mow the thrower down, I’d say the perp would draw 15 to 20 years, at a minimum. This isn’t India.
McCarthyism and Middle Eastern Studies
Viciously strident on some campuses, deviously low-key on others, there’s a McCarthyite campaign in full spate across higher education in the U.S. today. In the sights of the witch-hunters are junior and senior faculty targeted as “anti-Israel”, as terror-symps, as leftists. For every headline case, like Norman Finkelstein or Joseph Massad or Juan Cole there are three or four less publicized smear campaigns, methodical onslaughts to derail a hiring, head off a tenure appointment, disinvite a speaker, fence off the campus from all dangerous thoughts. The consequence: a climate of fear, of methodical censorship, of cowardice.
In this context I highly recommend our current newsletter, featuring Victoria Fontan’s narrative of her own experiences in US academia, after work in Fallujah and other Iraqi towns in the early months of the US occupation. Subscribers also get Alan Farago’s update on the battle to save the Everglades. From Paris Serge Halimi reports on NATO’s mission creep. Subscribe Now!
Alexander Cockburn can be reached at alexandercockburn@asis.com

Israeli War Crimes

Who to Trust: AIPAC or Amnesty International?
By RAY HANANIA
In a speech recently, President Bush says Israel has a right to defend itself against terror but he made no mention of Israel's government's "war crimes."
Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorism, but does Israel's government have a right to kill innocent Palestinians?
Does Israel's government have a right to fabricate excuses that no one can confirm as reasons to ethnically cleanse areas of the occupied lands?
Does Israel's government have a right to steal lands, expel its Christian and Muslim Palestinian inhabitants and replace them with Jewish refugees who claim a "right of return" that they deny to others?
Does Israel's government have a right to violate the Geneva Conventions, commit war crimes and literally impose a new form of Apartheid on the occupied population?
Bush was addressing AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Council), a foreign lobbying organization that has as much power in this country as the Electoral College.
AIPAC defends Israel's government's right to do whatever it wishes and is silent on its military abuses and atrocities against the Palestinians it occupies.
But rather than address AIPAC, Maybe Bush should have spoken to a gathering of Amnesty International, an organization that is objective and more dedicated to fairness, justice, truth and individual liberties on this planet than AIPAC.
This week, Amnesty issued a scathing 65-page report accusing Israel not only of violating the Geneva Conventions - which Israel does not recognize - but also of committing "war crimes." (You won't read much about the report in our media and you won't find it on the White House web page, so go to Amnesty's web page at and read it yourself.)
At least there is someone in this world who does not fear the power of AIPAC or the defamation of those who criticize Israel's government "war crimes."
The report said the demolition and destruction are ``grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and are war crimes'' Amnesty called on Israel to halt the practices immediately, and said the house demolitions are linked to Israeli intentions to take over West Bank and Gaza land.
Haven't people been saying that for years?
Amnesty reports "Families are forcibly evicted from their homes, often at night, without prior warning. They are given only a few minutes to leave their home and are not allowed to salvage their possession. The unprecedented scale of destruction has resulted in widespread violations of the right to adequate housing and standard of living for tens of thousands of people and violates fundamental principles of international human rights and humanitarian law.
It goes on to say, "In the Occupied Territories, demolitions are often carried out as collective punishments for Palestinian attacks or to facilitate the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. Both practices contravene international law and some of these acts are war crimes.
The report is devastating and labels the Wall as a violation, too.
Amnesty concludes "Israel's right to take reasonable, necessary and proportionate measures to protect the security of its citizens does not allow such disproportionate and discriminatory restrictions and collective punishment, which violate international law."
What that means is this: the two kids at Columbine claimed they were being harassed and bullied by other students had a right to file formal complaints against the other students and to bring the harassment to an end.
They did not have the right to bring in their own weapons and wantonly murder other students as an act of revenge.
That's exactly what Israel's government is doing. Of course Israelis have a right to defend themselves, but not to do it in such a way that they are achieving other more sinister objectives such as the theft of Palestinian lands, which is the foundation of Israel's policies and actions.
I don't expect AIPAC to replace their blind support for Israel with truth and justice above. And, even tough I am an American who served during the Vietnam War and whose father and uncle served during World War II, I will be accused of being "anti-Semitic" just for repeating Amnesty International's conclusions.
But you might think that Bush, the guy who goes around the word lecturing everyone about civil rights, freedom, democracy and justice, might be less concerned with appeasing AIPAC. Bush should be more concerned about putting truth and justice above AIPAC's blind support for Israel, even if it is a presidential election year and he is stumbling in the polls.
Ray Hanania is the former National President of the Palestinian American Congress. He can be reached at: www.hanania.com.
Weekend Edition Features for May 15 / 16, 2004

9 Ways to Face Your Fears

Ways to Face Your Fears
By Therese J. Borchard
Fears are like annoying relatives. You can't avoid them forever, and ignoring them won't make them go away. Come Thanksgiving, they'll plop down right next to you and ask to borrow your fork. So you'd better figure out how to confront the little devils before they eat your dessert too. Here are a few fun ideas for how to tell your fears to hit the bricks.
Begin to face your fears.
Therese J. Borchard writes the Beyond Blue blog for Beliefnet.

Euthanasia & Physician

Quotations:
"Whose life is it, anyway?" A plea by the late Sue Rodrigues, a high-profile, terminally-ill resident of British Columbia, Canada, who suffered from ALS. 1 She was helped to commit suicide by a physician in violation of Canadian law in the presence of a Member of Parliament. Neither the doctor nor the MP were prosecuted.
"We are disappointed at the decision. The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life ... that is built on valuing life at all stages." White House spokesman Scott McClellan, responding to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2006-JAN which found the Oregon physician assisted suicide legislation to be constitutional. 2
"The right to a good death is a basic human freedom. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold aid in dying allows us to view and act on death as a dignified moral and godly choice for those suffering with terminal illnesses." John Shelby Spong 3
Overview:
Throughout North America, committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide is no longer a criminal offense. However, helping another person commit suicide is a criminal act. Two exceptions are the states of:
Oregon which, since 1997, has allowed people who are terminally ill and in intractable pain to obtain a lethal prescription from their physician and end their chronic suffering. This is called "Physician Assisted Suicide" or PAS.
Washington whose voters passed Initiative 1000 in 2008-NOV. Supporters call it a "Death with Dignity bill;" opponents call it an "Assisted Suicide" measure.
There have been four failed ballot initiatives between 1991 and 2000:
1991: Washington state: defeated narrowly 54% to 46%
1992: California: Defeated narrowly 54% to 46%
1998: Michigan: Defeated overwhelmingly 71% to 29%
2000: Maine: Defeated very narrowly 51% to 49%.
Between 1994 and 2006, there were 75 legislative bills to legalize PAS in 21 states. All failed. 4
Attention is currently focused on a bill in the California legislature.
Topics covered in this section:
Introduction to Euthanasia & PAS: Terms, Why is it an issue?, Suicide beliefs.
Further information: battles, ethical and religious aspects, public opinion.
Euthanasia and Terri Schiavo
About living wills
Does PAS actually increase pain experienced by dying patients?
Status of euthanasia / PAS in:
The U.S.: Oregon law, U.S. Supreme Court decision, California, recent events, etc.
Canada: Private member bill introduced
The Netherlands (Holland)
The UK: England, Scotland, Wales
Elsewhere in the world
Links to web sites
Books
Related essays in this web site:
Suicide
Suicide passages in the Bible
Criminalizing information sources about committing suicide
Sources of information on suicide methods on the Internet
The medical management of pain

Who is a Christian?

A simple question, with many answers

Quotations:
"Any phenomenon as complex and as vital as Christianity is easier to describe historically than to define logically." From Encarta's definition of "Christianity." 1
"What is a Christian, anyway? Someone of European descent? A persecutor of Jews? Someone who votes for only the most conservative Republicans? At times all of these answers have seemed plausible. Some use these definitions to this day. In Christian circles the answers are no clearer. A Christian is sometimes said to be someone who has made a decision; sometimes, someone who belongs to a church; far too often, someone who confesses the right creeds." Mark M. Mattison 2
Important note:
This section acts as a bit of a lightning rod. It seems to attract Christians who strongly disagree with what it says.
We get many Emails from angry Christians who denounce it.
Rather than send us an Email, please read what others have written us and our answers. It might save you the trouble of writing an Email to us.
Overview:
One of the more interesting, and frustrating, features of religion is the variety of meanings given to common words and terms. Many religious words have multiple -- often mutually exclusive -- meanings. For example:
We have found 9 meanings for the term "cult:" one positive, four neutral, three negative and one very negative.
We have found 17 meanings for the term "witch" - mostly unrelated to each other; mostly negative.
There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`�n). Four examples are:
Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are all considered Christian. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population.
However, many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define "Christian" more narrowly to include only those persons who have been "born again" regardless of their denomination. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.
Some Protestant Christian denominations, para-church groups, and individuals have assembled their own lists of cardinal Christian doctrines. Many would regard anyone who denies even one of their cardinal doctrines to be a non-Christian. Unfortunately, there is a wide diversity of belief concerning which historical Christian beliefs are cardinal.
Other denominations regard their own members to be the only true Christians in the world. Some are quite small, numbering only a few thousand followers.
Different definitions on such a fundamental topic makes dialog and debate among Christian groups very difficult. It also makes estimating the number of Christians in the U.S. quite impossible. By some definitions, 75% of Americans are Christians; by other definitions, it is a small fraction of 1%.
Yet, from the negative Emails that we receive on this topic, there are many Christians out there who hold with fierce determination to their own definition of "Christian" as the only valid one. We wrote a special essay to address their concerns
Topics in this section about "who is a Christian?:"
The scope of the problem
Definitions according to
Various faith groups
The Apostles' Creed, one philosopher, dictionaries, and Google
The earliest Christians, secular sources, and this website
Which definition is correct? Which one is used on this web site?
A note to those who disagree with how we define "Christian"
Closely related essay on this web site:
Lists of the cardinal beliefs of Christianity.
Sponsored link:
document.write('');
References:
The Encarta Encyclopedia is online at: http://encarta.msn.com/
Mark M. Mattison, "What is a Christian," True Grace Ministries, at: http://www.auburn.edu/
We were invited to exchange links with Jesus Christ Saves Ministries (JCSM

hate is a severe mental disorder

The FBI reports annually about hate crimes in the U.S. Among these crimes, religious motivation appears to be second only to race in frequency.
In late 2000, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based Islamic advocacy group, reported anti-Islamic remarks by a range of American and Canadian public figures, "from congressional candidates to syndicated columnists. [They] have portrayed Islam as 'murderous' and Palestinians as 'lower than pond scum' or 'ragheads,' 'pieces of sh-t' and 'turds.'
Anti-Islamic religious hatred appears to be widespread in the U.S. and Canada. Violent incidents against Muslims and their mosques are often triggered by national and international news items. For example, anti-Muslim hysteria followed the 1995 terrorist attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK. Although responsibility for the bombing was eventually traced to two domestic terrorists from the Christian Identity movement, there had been initial speculation that the persons responsible might have been Muslims. The 2001-MAR attack on two Muslims in Sparks, NV might have been triggered by the destruction of the Buddhist statues by the Taleban, in Afghanistan.
The CAIR website describes some of incidences against Muslims and their places of worship over the past few years in the U.S. and Canada: 1,2
1994: An arsonist started a fire that burned to the ground a nearly completed mosque in Yuba City. CA.
1995: The Islamic center in Springfield IL was destroyed by arson.
1995-SEP-17: Vandals painted obscenities and graffiti on the windows, walls and trees of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, in Patterson, NJ. Flammable liquid was found on the floor of an outbuilding; this might have been an attempted arson.
1995-SEP: Vandals attacked the mosque at Clarkston, GA by breaking windows, damaging lights, discharging fire extinguishers, and burning satanic symbols (inverted pentagrams) into the carpet.
1995-OCT-21:The Islamic Center and Masjid of Greenville, SC, was destroyed in an arson attack. A suspect was later charged.
1995-OCT-21: Vandals painted an obscene message on the wall of the Flint Islamic Center/Genesee Academy in Flint, MI.
1996-MAR-19: Employees of a radio station in Denver, CO entered the local mosque after morning prayers. They allegedly played the national anthem on a trumpet, harassed the worshipers, and broadcast the incident live on radio. An agreement was later concluded between the local Muslim community and the radio station. It included a public apology by the station, sensitivity training for station employees and PSAs that offered a positive image of Islam.
1998-JAN-28: A 23 year old man was arrested for allegedly smashing a concrete block through the glass front door of the mosque in Fort Collins, CO.
1998-JAN-29: Vandals scattered metal spikes in the parking lot of the Flint Islamic Center in Flint, MI. A number of cars had flat tires.
1998-FEB-22: A vandal threw a beer bottle through the second floor window of the mosque in Bloomingdale, IN.
1998-MAR-8: Someone torched three school busses owned by the local Islamic school in Ottawa, ON Canada.
1999-MAY: A man was arrested after fleeing in his car from the area of a mosque in Denver CO. Loaded weapons, machetes, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and bomb making materials were found in his car. Jack Merylin Modig was later arrested. He allegedly said "I am an enemy against the Islamic nation [sic] and I was going to take care of business."
1999-JUN-23: CFRB, a Toronto, ON Canada radio station broadcasted a live call-in program. The initial topic dealt with a Greek Orthodox priest who refused admittence of a seeing-eye dog into his church. A caller criticized religious extremism. He said "Nero burned the wrong people - he should have burned the Muslims." The announcer tried to change to another topic. The operations manager of CFRB later apologized. They have since drawn up new guidelines for operations during call-in shows.
1999-MAR-5: A mosque was seriously damaged by an arsonist in Minneapolis, MN
1999: Three youths were charged with vandalism of a Villa Park IL mosque, near Chicago. They allegedly threw several large chunks of concrete and a glass milk bottle through four windows of the Islamic Foundation.
2000-JUN-20: A gunman seriously injured a worshiper at an Islamic Center in Memphis, TN. The door to the mosque was damaged by a shotgun blast.
2000-NOV: A suspicious fire gutted the lobby of a mosque in Surrey, British Columbia, and severely damaged the rest of the building. There were no injuries reported. Witnesses reported seeing a van speeding away from the mosque just before an explosion was heard.
2001-JAN: Vandals targeted the Islamic Center of Southern California.
2001-FEB *: Vandals attacked a mosque in Winnipeg, MB, Canada. They smeared animal feces, eggs and white paint on the front of the building. Garbage was strewn around.
2001-MAR-16: Several youths, one with a baseball bat, allegedly attacked two Muslims who were standing outside of their mosque in Sparks NV. One Muslim had his arm broken. The other was more seriously injured and was in critical condition in hospital after undergoing three operations. A member of a nearby church ran to help stop the attack.
* Date is approximate.
Precautions:
CAIR recommended that mosques consider taking a number of safety measures:
Policy and procedure changes:
Report suspicious packages to police. Do not touch them.
Try to have people attend the mosque as much as possible. Activity deters perpetrators.
Consider creating a security committee at your mosque.
Post mosque members at entrances and parking areas during prayer times.
Document descriptions of suspicious people or vehicles.
Make duplicates of all important papers, computer disks and records.
Work with with the local community:
Build good relationships with neighbors of the mosque. Invite them to visit your center.
Request additional police patrols in the vicinity of your center. Special attention should be paid to times of darkness and during prayers.
Participate in neighborhood watch programs.
Consider implementing site modifications:
Ask the community relations officer of your local police department to tour your center and make suggestions on improving mosque security.
Install outside perimeter floodlights.
Install security cameras.
Install fire and burglar alarms.
Remove trash, debris and other fire hazards
Trim shrubs and vines to reduce areas of concealment.
Install burglarproof bars on screens and large vents if permitted by building codes
Replace hollow core doors with more secure solid doors. 1
References:
"Muslims assaulted outside Nevada mosque," CAIR News release, 2001-MAR-17
CAIR can be contacted at: Council on American-Islamic Relations, 453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC 20003. Phone: 202-488-8787, Fax: 202-488-0833, Page: 202-490-5653, E-mail: cair1@ix.netcom.com, Web site: http://www.cair-net.org/

الإسلام والغرب

تفاوت الرؤيا بين العرب وإسرائيل
صراع الحضارات..واقع أم خرافة(**)

"....إن خرافة المواجهة بين الإسلام والغرب , هي خرافة مستديمة من جهتين متناقضتين في الظاهر. من المعسكر الغربي بالدرجة الأولى ولكن ليس في الغرب حصرا. هذا المعسكر الذي يسعى لتحويل العالم الإسلامي إلى عدو آخر.ومن معسكر أولئك الذين يدعون , من داخل البلدان الإسلامية نفسها,إلى المواجهة مع العالم غير المسلم ، و خصوصا العالم الغربي . و هي تنطوي على محاجة ، و هي إذ تنتقد ايديولوجيات من سعوا طويلا الى الهيمنة على العالم الاسلامي ، فانها تنتقد أيضاً الكثير مما يحدث بوصفه رداً " بديلا " "محليا" "أصيلا" من داخل هذه البلدان نفسها . و بهذا المعنى فإن هذا الكتاب سيجابه بالرفض من قبل المجموعتين على حد سواء " .
هذه الفقرة جزء من المدخل الذي اختاره فريد هاليداي لكتابة ذي العنوان : " الإسلام و الغرب – خرافة المواجهة" و الذي صدرت طبعته العربية عن دار الساقي ( بيروت – لندن ).
الكتاب يعتمد مبدأ الإستقراء التاريخي للأحداث الشرق أوسطية مع محاولة ربطها بالسياق السياسي العالمي ، ابتداء من فترة ما بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية . و يجهد المؤلف للحفاظ على موضوعية طروحاته , و كسب الغطاء المنطقي لها . مما يجعله يتنقل بين محاجات كثيرة ، قد يبطئ القارئ في استيعابه لها و لأسلوب قفز المؤلف بينها .
الملاحظة الأولى هي أن هاليداي يرفض مسلمات عديدة . فهو لا يعترف بوجود ما يسمى النظام العالمي الجديد ، لأنه يرى أن هذا النظام قد وجد نهايته مع سقوط الإتحاد السوفياتي العام 1991 ، بحيث لم يعد قادراً على التمثيل في نظام عالمي . بل هو يعتبر هذا النظام مجرد أسطورة . كما أنه و بعد أن يفرق بين الإسلام الديني و الإسلام السياسي ، يجد أن هذا الأخير هو مجرد طرح غير قابل للتنفيذ و مختلف باختلاف الزمان و المكان . بل هو يكاد يجزم بعدم وجود إسلام سياسي واحد . فيؤكد وجود رؤى متعددة يؤكد عجزها عن تقديم الحلول الناجمة للمشاكل الإجتماعية – الإقتصادية التي بررت ظهورها و قبولها في بلدان عديدة .
عبى أية حال فإن هاليداي يوزع كتابه على فصول سبعة هي : 1- الشرق الأوسط و السياسة الدولية و 2- الثورة الإيرانية من منظور مقارن و 3- حرب الخليج الثانية و 4- خرافة المواجهة بين الإسلام و الغرب و 5- خطر الإسلام أم خطر على الإسلام و 6- حقوق الإنسان و الشرق الأوسط الأسلامي و 7- معاداة المسلمين و السياسة المعاصرة ثم "الاستشراق و نقاده" .
و يبدأ المؤلف بمناقشة الإسلام السياسي ، مبتعداً عن الإسلام بمفهومه الديني . معلناً أن مناقشته تتناول طرح الإسلام كنظام سياسي – اجتماعي ، فيعلن عدم اعتقاده بجدوى اعتبار الوقائع السياسية – الإجتماعية ، التي يصح فيها هذا المصطلح كجزء من ظاهرة واحدة . لأنه يرى أن هذا المصطلح لا يملك دلالة موحدة أقله على مستوى التحليل السياسي . خصوصاً أن للمصطلح دلالات متغيرة من زمن لآخر و من مكان لآخر و تغير هذه الدلالات يجد برهانه في الفروقات الدلالية بين الإسلام العربي ( الأموي و العباسي ) ، و بين الإسلام الفارسي و الطوراني و أيضاً بين الحركات الإسلامية المعاصرة , حيث يلاحظ توظيف الرموز و المعتقدات الدينية توظيفات مختلفة .
لكننا نقف هنا للتأكيد على جهود المؤلف للتمسك بموضوعية تحليله و نظرته لتطبيقات الإسلام السياسي . و في المقابل نسأل عن اليهودية السياسية و الخرافات المؤسسة لها ، و أيضاً عن شيزوفرانيا أو تعدد شخصيات هذه اليهودية . و السؤال هنا ليس معترضاً إذا كان المؤلف معتمداً نهج الإستقراء التاريخي . حيث اليهودية تعتبر أن الإالتزام بنظامها السياسي _ الإجتماعي جزء من الإيمان اليهودي ، و لا تقبل التفريق بين يهودية دينية و أخرى سياسية . بل ان مجرد محاولات التفريق قد فشلت في التجربة الإسرائيلية . فها يجوز أن تقدم تحليلاً للشرق الأوسط يتجاهل هذه الوقائع ؟ خصوصاً أن المؤلف سيتابع هذا التجاهل في حديثه عن خصوصية الشرق الأوسط ، فيرى عدم جدوى اعتبار هذه المنطقة احدى أكثر مناطق العالم تأزماً في حقبة ما بعد 1945 . و يقدم لذلك الدلائل بالتذكير بسخونة الشرق الأقصى في الفترة عينها . و يخلص الى التنبيه مما يمكن أن يسمى "نرجسية إقليمية" ، شرق أوسطية ، تميل لإعتبار اقليمها متفرداً في دراميته و أهمية أحداثه .
و الواقع أنني أوافق المؤلف على استعمال مصطلح "النرجسية" لأن درامية الشرق الأوسط إنما تتنبع من الجروح النرجسية ، التي حدثت في جغرافية هذه المنطقة غداة الحرب العالمية الأولى . فكان أول هذه الجروح تحطيم حلم الدولة العربية ، و من ثم وعد بلفور ، و اتفاقيو سايكس – بيكو ، و اقتطاع تركيا لقسم من الساحل السوري الشمالي ... الخ من الجروح النرجسية – الجغرافية التي لا تزال قابلة للتفجير ، و التي كان يمكن للمؤلف أن يتابع على ضوئها مناقشة قضايا عديدة لاحقة في كتابه ، فبالرغم من هول صراعات الشرق الأقصى ، فإنها كانت ملتزمة باطار ايديولوجي ، في حين أن صراعات الشرق الأوسط ، هي صراعات ناجمة عن التفكيك القسري للمنطقة . و هي صراعات قابلة للامتداد عبر الأجيال .
من هنا تأتي قابلية صراعات المنطقة للانفجار السريع ، و لتغير أنظمتها السياسية ، و اتجاهاتها ، و أيضاًُ من هنا خروج هذه الصراعات بقدر كبير من الشلة الأوسع للسياسة الدولية (كما يقول المؤلف) .
ثم يذكر المؤلف خمسة أمثلة (يعتبرها أساسية) على خصوصية الشرق الأوسط و هي : 1- سيادة السلام و 2- القضية الفلسطينية و 3- التفاني من اجل الوحدة العربية و 4- صعود الدول النفطية
و 5- الارهاب . فيرى أن سيادة الاسلام انما تعود لفشل التجارب العلمانية في حل الأزمات الاجتماعية – الاقتصادية – الثقافية ، مما أفسح المجال لاقتراحات الحل الديني ، متجاهلاً مرة اخرى ازمة الانتماء ، التي تفسر العوامل الخمسة مجتمعة . حتى أمكن القول ان صعود التيار الديني انما جاء لتعويض فخ الانتماء الذي نسجته الجروح النرجسية – الجغرافية المشار اليها اعلاه .
لكن المؤلف يثير في المقابل موضوعاً في غاية الأهمية و هو موضوع العنف داخل الأمة ( الشرق أوسطية ) فيرى أن ضحايا هذا العنف هم من السكان المحليين ، على عكس الانطباع السائد عن توجه هذا العنف نحو الاوروبيين و الغربيين اجمالاًَ . و الواقع ان هذا الانطباع قد نجم اساساً عن التضخيم الاعلامي الغربي لحوادث العنف الموجه نحو الغربيين مع تجاهل تام لعنفهم المضاد و للعنف الداخلي . و هذا الأخير يجد نفسه و تبريره من خلال مرض تعدد الشخصيات (الانتماءات) الناجم عن الجراحات الجغرافية الوحشية ، التي لم تجد شفاءها لغاية اليوم ، و التي يستطيع التيار الديني وحده ان يقدم وعداً بشفائها يرتبط بالعقيدة .
و ينتقل المؤلف للحديث عن الثورة الايرانية ، فيركز علة ايديولوجيتها الدينية ، و يعتبرها الأولى من نوعها في التاريخ الحديث (منذ العام 1789) ففقد كان الدين عماد هذه الثورة ، و هيمن على أشكالها التنظيمية و كوادرها القيادية ، و اهدافها المعلنة مما أعطى لهذه الثورة تمايزها و لكنه الزمها بنظام وضع للقرن السابع الميلادي ، و ليس لهذا الزمان الحالي . و من هنا رفض هذه الثورة لأفكار التقديم التاريخي . و عند هذه النقطة نجد ضرورة تذكير المؤلف باشكالية اليهودية السياسية التي استبقنا طرحها أعلاه . فها هي اسرائيل ترتدي رداءً عصرياً علمانياً ، لتعيش واقعاً يعود الى عدة قرون قبل الميلاد و لاتجد لها ناقداً .
ثم يأتي دور حرب الخليج الثانية ، فيرى المؤلف حياد الاسلام فيها رغم وقوعها بين دولتين اسلاميتين . في المقابل يرى ان هذه الحرب قد طرحت للنقاش اشكاليات عديدة في العلاقات الدولية ، مثل مسألة السيادة و التدخل في شؤون الغير ، و سابقة تدخل الأمم المتحدة في شمال العراق ... الخ . بعد هذه الستقراءات و العروض المتتالية يصل المؤلف الى محور كتابه ، و هو قضية المواجهة بين الاسلام و الغرب (صدام الحضارات). و يبدأ هاليداي برد فكرة و جود صراع كامن مستمر بين الاسلام و الغرب ، كما يرد فكرة اعادة احياء هذا الصراع كنتيجة لنهاية الحرب الباردة ، الى طائفة الديماغوجيين (اروروبيين و اميركيين ). و مع هذه الطائفة بعض المسلمين المحليين ، الذين افترضوا ان سقوط الاحزاب التابعة للشيوعية المنهارة ستفسح المجال لصعود احزاب اسلامية ، ستحل مكان البلشفية في تهديدها للغرب و في عدائه .
و يرى المؤلف ان هذه الافكار (حول صدام الحضارات) باتت شائعة في الغرب كما في الدول الاسلامية مما يجعل من محاولات وضعها في اطارها الصحيح عملية تتحدى كل الأطراف و قناعاتهم ، دون أن يعني ذلك عدم وجود السبل للتعامل مع طائفة طويلة من المسائل المعقدة الموحية بحتمية الصراع اذا لم يتم ايجاد الحلول لها .
و هذا طرح يتسم بالموضوعية و بجدية لا تتأثر بشائعات الفكر التي تكاد تصل الى حدود المسلمات و البديهيات . فهذا الصراع ظل كامناً طوال قرون ، و الفراغ الفكري المتخلف عن سقوط الشيوعية غير كاف نظرياً لاعادة احياء هذا الصراع . و بالتالي فانه مرشح للكمون لمدة زمنية مقبلة ، كما أن الاستقراء التاريخي يثبت ان الصراعات و ان سارت نحو الحروب فان نهايتها الخمود . و كان المؤلف قد مهد لهذه الفرضيات بتبيانه ان الارهاب و الصراعات الشرق اوسطية توجهت نحو الداخل و ليس نحو الخارج – الآخر ... (الغرب). لكن الذي يبقى مسيئاً الى موضوعية المؤلف و سلامة منطق عرضه الفكري هو تجاهله لكون اسرائيل رمزاً تجسيدياً للغرب ، يتجاوز احتلال الاراضي الى انتهاك الحرمات الدينية الاسلامية و المسيحية .
و باللجوء الى تأكيد توزع خارطة القوة العسكرية ، يحاول هاليداي ، تأكيد عجز الاسلام عن خوض مواجهة متكافئة مع الغرب . فالامبراطورية العثمانية ( الاسلامية ) سقطت منذ العام 1918 ، و لا سبيل لبعث رديف لها . و حتى اذا حصل ذلك فان القوة العسكرية لن تتكافأ مع قوة الغرب . و يحاول هاليداي تحليل اسباب شيوع اعتقاد صدام الحضارات ، فيجد ان الدول الاسلامية قد خاضت تجارب علمانية فشلت في حل مشاكلها الاجتماعية – الاقتصادية – الثقافية ، فوجدت في الاسلام الملجأ و الملاذ. أما في الغرب فان اوروبا باتت تخاف من موجات هجرة سكان العالم الثالث اليها . اما الولايات المتحدة فهي تخشى من الوان التعددية المقبلة اليها من بلدان العالم الثالث . و هي تعددية لم يعد بامكان نظام القيم الاميركي استيعابها . فهي تحمل معها تعددية دينية و ثقافية و لغوية . و هذا الخوف الأوروبي – الاميركي يبطن الرفض الذي يشكل قاعدة انطلاق شائعات صدام الحضارات برأي هاليداي .
خلاصة هل يتفق القارئ مع فكرة خرافية صدام الحضارات أم يختلف معها ؟ في رأينا ان القارئ لا يملك حق الاتفاق او الاختلاف حول هذا الموضوع لأن هناك حكومات عالمية تعتمد هذه الشائعة و تتصرف على أساسها ، بما يوحي بتحويلها من مجرد شائعة الى واقع عالمي . حتى يبدو و كأن العام يسير نحو حرب باردة جديدة ، حيث لا حساب لكمية الأسلحة بل للقدرة على تحقيق الأذى . العالم الثالث من جهته ليس مذنباً اذا كان يعد ملياراً من المسلمين بين سكانه الذين يحلم بعضهم بهجرة الى مدن الصفيح الغربية فيمنعون من ذلك .

Julia Roberts' Green House

Julia and hubby Danny Moder have just completed a $20 million extreme green-home makeover to their Malibu complex. We're not sure if the solar panel-covered roofs generate enough energy to take it completely off the grid, but at just over 6,000 square feet, the six-bedroom, five-bath house is pretty modest for such a huge star. Still, the home, built with wood from sustainably managed forests and recycled tiles, is enough to make other eco-stars like Leo DiCaprio and Ed Begley, Jr., green with envy.

Oprah Winfrey's "Promised Land"

We have a theory about the bad karma you can get from bashing Oprah. So we'll just say that Oprah calls her Montecito, California, home "Promised Land." You make your own judgments. Maybe we're just jealous? What would we call it if we bought a $52 million (now valued at around $90 million) Georgian-style mansion with 14 bathrooms and ten fireplaces, 45 acres of land with one of the most magnificent views on the Pacific Coast, a guesthouse, a gatehouse, a barn, an orchard, a couple of ponds, and a manmade lake? Guess we'd just call it a miracle.

Britney Spears' Mansion Rental

This past January, Britney left the Hollywood lifestyle behind and moved to the L.A. 'burbs with her sons. Her new Calabasas home, Chateau Suenos, features a glass mosaic pool, a state-of-the-art soundproof cinema, a climate-controlled Venetian plastered wine cellar, a custom bathroom suite with a dry sauna and steam shower, and a craft room (we all know how crafty Brit can be!). The best part? The elevator that takes her cars to underground storage. But Brit didn't shell out the $8.9 million asking price. Instead she’s renting until her yet-to-be-built home in the same neighborhood is ready.