2.The Paradox of Justice 

The photos of starved children and babies in African countries that are torn by war and deprived of the bounties of nature... tear your hearts apart,

Why, you ask.

Those who believe in karma will hasten to say: it is their karma,

And the rational mind cannot but question: so this baby who knows nothing about his/her past lives, of what benefit is it, if he/she suffers? and what is the purpose of all this anyway?

It is as if the whole purpose of being alive is to be judged, time after time!

The god or power or whatever you name it, has a mind no bigger than the beasts that he has made!

Hence the materialist jumps in and says: throw all those fallacies out of your mind. This is nothing. It is all an accident of nature, just make the best of it, in whichever way you see the "best" is.

And let us not forget the argument of the monotheists, although this one is on the extreme of irrationality, and sees god as an arbitrary ruler who doeth what he willeth, question not his authority, or he will punish you too.

And it is all ... as if the rational minds we have are our road to hell: as soon as we call them to understand things, we get pushed away by all these theories, and told to put up and shut up.

So in this essay, I will not make the situation better by telling you what I saw last week,

The photo of a dying baby in Africa broadcast to the world,

The scene was so confronting, so confronting,

I don't know what people make of such scenes in the depth of their minds,

Some are moved, and they hasten to give money to charities, believing that perhaps their contribution will make a difference, or at least take some of the agony off their own conscience,

Some are now so familiar with those scenes, and as soon as the subject is changed, they continue on doing whatever they are doing: working, eating, socialising....

Some just say: we are so lucky to have homes, food, clothes.... and comfort, we can't count our blessings,

But those scenes never stop coming into our living rooms, and since television became a part of everyone's life.

Let's not forget Bob Geldof and his Live Aid, and the awareness that he raised in people's minds in the eighties, when he got the top pop stars to sing to the world to raise millions upon millions of aid dollars,

And let's not forget, that to his disappointment, a lot of it was wasted and did not reach those who needed it, due to tribal wars, politics, corruption, red tape....

And as if those who were suffering were meant to suffer, whatever you did!

But that particular baby got my attention, because that baby was... a very hated man who died recently, and many cheered to his death,

He was trying to reach out to the world, to show the paradox of justice:

In one photo I'm ugly and you hate me, in another I'm suffering and you suffer for me.

So the questions are raised again: Karma? randomness? draconian god?

What nonsense,

Your causes, thoughts and beliefs...  are like the matter of this earth:

One day you refuse it, the next day you eat it as wholesome food: by the same laws of chemistry.

 So if this does not answer your questions, you are right,

Your causes and questions have no answers except in as far as you can perceive them,

You derived them all from The Law, to keep yourselves busy and entertained, in a world that cares little about you,

The world is joyful, playing your causes raising your questions, as you consume them,

Good luck.

And one day, soon, you will wake up, and you will say: I was told.

 3. The Coincidence of Tribal Laws

Has anyone missed the footage of Gaddafi being dragged like a lamb, bloodied, frightened, helpless... then dead?

The footage from several sources was broadcast on world news of Western broadcasting corporations, several times,

And now a week later, we still see glimpses of it, whenever and wherever they can fit it...

And let us not forget the footage of Hilary Clinton, when she  had apparently just received the news on her phone,

She had a grin, and she went: wow.

But don't you worry, the West is civilised and has laws by which it abides, and they have urged the new authorities of Libya to investigate...

 But one cannot be sure what such an investigation can uncover.

Mind you, on the second day of the event, there was footage of a guy who was jubilantly crying out: "you killed him",

Then we saw a guy brandishing a gun, and others and himself, saying that he killed him with this gun,

And that would seem to be the most plausible scenario: a bullet in the head and one in the abdomen are quite unlikely to be an accident of "cross fire", when the man was surrounded by a big crowd... the bullet would have to be smart, capable of going round people to hit a target so accurately,

On the other hand, the tribal law of those who were carrying out that fight legitimises avenge killing, without trial,

And let us not forget, that there was footage of bodies in the tens, executed with their hands tied up behind their backs, ostensibly, because they were pro-Gaddafi fighters.

And the West, of course, demanded an investigation, so don't you worry.

And one would wonder, when the new government is formed, how will the West respond, if the new government answers: "this is our law, it is legitimate in our religion, do not interfere in our affairs",

Of course, this will all take place behind the scenes, until somebody exposes it and leaks it out,

But the West will have to shut up, although it might still pretend that it is pursuing justice,

But you see, Libya is a golden opportunity, not only is it oil rich, but it is still a market hungry for Western consumables and commercial advertising, which under Gaddafi were very restrained.

There are so many contradictions taking place in those events, which make the war in Iraq and Afghanistan look like a child's play.

Most astonishing was the Libyan people who were too ready to carry arms and wage war against one another,

Such outbursts of violence are the outbursts of a long time brewing grudge, and cannot be the venting of a bit of anger and frustration, they cannot be,

So what was the cause of the grudge, one would ask?

On one news footage, one guy said that Gaddafi  asked him, as they dragged him out of his hiding: "what have I done to you?"

The young man said it unreservedly and seemed to have no sympathy for Gaddafi whatsoever.

On the other hand, pro-Gaddafi journalists, or whoever they were, have posted videos on the web to talk up Gaddafi's great achievements in his country: free education, free medical services, the country's first-rate infrastructure, cheap energy and fuel, debt free country....  and the list of achievements went on and on...

All of which is probably true,

Yet the video missed to mention for example how those who opposed or criticised the regime were treated,

But why would anyone want to oppose or criticise a regime that seems to care about the people so much, one would ask,

All that leads one to conclude that there was more to the story than what the Western media or the pro-Gaddafi propaganda were broadcasting,

You see, the images of those fighters of all ages, carrying arms and putting their lives on the line, and chanting: Allahu Akbar (God is greatest), and practising their prayers while being filmed by the media photographers...

All that says that the anti-Gaddafi revolution was trying to justify its actions by showing itself as an Islamic revolution, driven by righteousness and Islamic values,

So was Gaddafi in any way against Islam?

Not in the least degree. He was a practising Muslim, and he called on the West at one point to adopt Islam, believing it was the best way out of its social and economic problems,

And he openly expressed that he was inspired by his faith.

So the question which comes next: does the revolution have a different interpretation of Islam from Gaddafi's, and has the difference become so acute that a revolution at such a scale became justifiable?

Although the anti-Gaddafi fighters have given the world the impression that they are true Muslims, and, hence, their enemy, that is Gaddafi, was not: they have never spoken on such matters, and the aim of the revolution seemed to focus on ridding of Gaddafi and his sons and entourage.

So, once again, what is really going on?

If one wants to adopt a conspiracy theory one would hastily say that it was all fuelled and orchestrated by the West, so they could put their hands on Libya's oil and open it as a market for their products, at the time when export dollars can make a difference,

But why would the West go to such ends, after they have built bridges of communications with him and some of his sons, and have flirted with him and have paved the way for big business deals with him?

A lot of pieces are missing from the jigsaw puzzle, and the lack of information is making it more difficult to assemble,

But there is one thing one can see very clearly,

And that is: Gaddafi might have lavished his people with top class public services and infrastructure and so on, yet he has failed to bring his people out of the doldrums and the darkness of their tribal mentality,

And that is because he, himself, was unable to make that exit,

This is perhaps why he felt so threatened by anyone who disagreed with him or opposed him.

Gaddafi lived in the past and thought that by clinging to the past he could revive the glory of Islam and the Arabs,

Although he did seem to want to move forward and modernise his country, the basis of his ideology are in the past.

One has to read his "Green Book" to come to these conclusions,

On one page he sounds like a modern leader who has a vision of equality and prosperity and education...  for all, on another he sounds like a self-proclaimed philosopher king from the antiquity, who knows everything, all you have to do is listen to him, and he will guide you to a better world.

And although some of his criticism of Western democracies holds value: and we have said on these web pages, that the western democratic system is not truly the rule of the people, as it is meant to be,

It is rather the rule of political parties which are financed by big business and wealthy individuals,

And it is those who have the power to determine what the issues of governance are for the term of the government,

So, although he was able to see those fallibilities, the alternative he devised is rooted  back in the past, and looks in the past instead of going forward, and here are some quotes from his Green Book, the source being: www.mathaba.net website, which seems to be the official one setup by his government:

   "The natural law of any society is grounded in either tradition (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law outside these two sources is invalid and illogical. Constitutions cannot be considered the law of society. A constitution is fundamentally a (man-made) positive law, and lacks the natural source from which it must derive its justification."

 "The fundamental law of society must not be subject to historical drafting or composition. Its importance lies in being the decisive criterion in light of which truth and falsehood, right and wrong, and individual rights and duties can be judged. Freedom is threatened unless society adheres to a sacred law with established rules that are not subject to alteration or change by any instrument of government. It is, rather, the responsibility of the instrument of government to adhere to the laws of society. Unfortunately, people the world over are currently ruled by manmade laws that can be changed or abrogated, depending upon the struggle for power among competing forms of government."

Gaddafi, and other Arab leaders who subscribe openly and secretly to such beliefs, believe that their interpretation of the Qur'an and the Shariah (law) of the Qur'an is God's Law,

And the tribal system which was prevalent in the times of the spread of Islam, is "the system" that God created. And it is said in the Qur'an: "And We have created you as peoples and tribes, so you may know/interact with one another".

And depending on what is strongest in people's minds, the emphasis in this Qur'anic verse can be put on the fact that the people of the earth are created as "peoples and tribes", as Gaddafi elaborated at length in his Green Book,

Or on the fact that people are "peoples and tribes" so they may know/interact/cooperate with one another, as such an activity improves one's knowledge and promotes cooperation between the "tribes" of the world.

So although one of Islam's primary aims was to end "jaahilyyah" (heathenry), which was demonstrated by constant tribal wars between different Arab tribes - amongst other things of course - no sooner did Muhammad die than the followers of his Khalifs started waging wars against one another, with one difference only, that this time the wars were all waged in the name of Islam and for the cause of god,

And this cycle of war counter war, and leader counter leader, and tribe counter tribe... has been going on for a millennium and a half relentlessly.

And although the different interpretations of the Qur'an and the Shariah are often used as a pretext for waging those wars, this has not been the case in the recent Libyan revolution, as we said before.

In any case, tribal wars seem to be the only method for resolving differences in this part of the world, be those differences ideological or other.

So here is another quote from the same source:  

 "The solution lies in the people being themselves the instrument of government whose authority is derived from Basic Popular Conferences and the General People's Congress; in eliminating government administration and replacing it by People's Committees; and finally, in the General People's Congress becoming a truly national convention where Basic Popular Conferences and People's Committees convene.

"In such a system, if deviation takes place, it is then rectified by a total democratic revision, and not through the use of force. The process here is not a voluntary option for social change and treatment of social ills. It is, rather, an inevitable result of the nature of this democratic system because, in such a case, there is no outside group who can be held responsible for such deviation or against whom violence can be directed."

Obviously the theory did not work. And  the "deviation" was not rectified, and Libya became a society suffering from a major divide, between those who belonged to the powerful and privileged tribes, and those who did not,

And perhaps thousands were thrown in torture cells, just for being "deviant", according to the judgement of the few who had the power to judge,

And when the rebellion gained momentum, and the people were in the streets in their thousands, Gaddafi was not hesitant to use the army to try to crush them,

Contrary to his own teaching,

And violence spiralled out, when Western countries saw a great opportunity:

The European Union (EU) which finds itself most affected by this phenomenon due to its geographic closeness to Libya, took time to reflect,

Their leaders had learned a lesson from the American example in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many of them were against those two wars anyhow,

They also wanted to be seen as the just and philanthropic and ethical alternative to the Americans, who just rampage to protect their own interest ("we have to protect our own interests" is a quote that every American official has used openly, when asked to justify those two wars) ,

And let's not forget the debt crisis that has been crippling Europe for the last five years or more:  a Libya that is devastated by civil war is going to need everything: arms, training, security, redevelopment of infrastructure....

And who would be most entitled to provide? Of course, those who helped the Libyan people to become free,

And European leaders did go there to show their solidarity with the revolution,

This was an opportunity also to paint the West as a friend to the Muslims, rather than a foe, as the Americans have managed to paint themselves successfully over many decades,

Remember when Nicolas Sarkozy gave a speech to god-knows-who, the main point was the fervour that he was fuelling, when he went, in a very Middle Eastern style: "vive la Liby".

The EU and the entire West for that matter does not see itself as a nation of tribes or a tribe of nations,

They believe they have progressed and created a modern society, based on law, science, democracy, with a hint of faith and religion occasionally,

Yet, the West, from past to present, is not shy to say that they have to do the best, each for the interest of their own countries,

And it sounds perhaps insane, now in the twenty-first century, to suggest that there is wrong in that,

Because those who cannot see beyond such a principle will jump up to say: so you want us to let our enemies invade us and exploits us?

 So Western countries have agreed between one another, whether implicitly or explicitly, that what they call "pragmatism" is the way to co-exist, rather than an immediate declaration of war when differences arise.

Although a lot has been written and spoken about pragmatism, one of its main principles is very simple:

You want to live and progress, and so do I. Let's negotiate what each wants, this is easier and less costly for both of us. You have your bargaining chips and I have mine, you have armies and weaponry and I have mine, with such an understanding we know where we are most likely to end up if we did not agree peacefully;

Mind you, pragmatists who have written books about it try to present it as a highly intelligent system of politics/philosophy, suited for the modern world.

The problem with pragmatism is that it leaves a lot of room for deception, coercion, greed and selfishness ... all of which are seen by the pragmatists as incorrigible natural tendencies in humans,

So the party who has the power to deceive, coerce or submit others will not hesitate to do so within pragmatic  constraints.

And therefore, the party which feels was wronged and hard-done by in some past will not hesitate to revolt, or retaliate manyfold when the circumstances change and the tables are turned around.

In an essay prior to the American led invasion of Iraq, and when the Iraq problem and its WMD's were still being investigated and debated in the media, an essayist, perhaps Charles krauthammer wrote on the last page of Time magazine, where he usually wrote, to the effect that Saddam Hussein was doing the right thing by his country, in as far as building his arsenal, therefore he must be stopped.

Perhaps the pragmatists would not find such a judgement "pragmatic", but his idea is not totally alien to pragmatism:

If in a political and economic calculation an invasion of Iraq is found to be the least costly option amongst all the options of dealing with his threat, then be it.

Thus, all those ideologies deal with an envisaged danger, and look for "solutions",

And as if the foe is some monster who has come to eat us, and we must "eat him at lunch before he does us at supper", as a popular Middle Eastern saying goes,

And as another Middle Eastern saying goes:  "me and by brother against our cousin, and me and my cousin against the stranger."

You see, those simple sayings, born in ignorance and illiteracy, are only crude in their blunt wording, but their spirit is not by one whisker different from the sophisticated and verbose systems of the modern West,

Hence the tribal law of the West happened to coincide with that of the Middle East this time around,

And both the civilised West and the religious Middle East colluded and committed crimes and destroyed a country, contrary to their principles,

And it remains to be seen whether the new Libyan government, elected by democratic processes, will be willing to abolish the tribal law of the country, and treat everyone equally, without privileging one group over another for whatever reason,

And to stop the favouritism and the bribery that is rampant in the Middle East, because in their interpretation of Islam, it is not illegitimate.

At least the West has put such vices behind, and has laws which have put an end to many of those practices.

And if the new government is going to keep the tribal system, then rest assured that there are going to be a new group of an underprivileged,

And that makes the grounds very fertile for extremists to market their ideologies:

They will say: this is god's punishment because those guys do not go by the Shariah, like we do,

And the spiralling down to a Taliban style of rule will be imminent.

The change has to happen in people's minds' first, any change of political systems or political figures is only cosmetic, as soon as your face sweats under stress, the cosmetic ripples down to dirt.