Obama to the Egyptian People

[NOTE: Barack Obama would never even consider saying any of what follows.]

President Obama should be making an overture to the Egyptian people. If I were in his shoes, I would be saying:

“I propose to the US Congress that all US military aid to the Egyptian government cease at the earliest, lawful moment. A new aid package should take its place, but only with provisions that directly benefit the Egyptian people. Not the wealthiest and most connected few. But to those who have not benefited from that current administration’s democracy. That is to say, to the many. And that type of aid should be our model from now on.

“In addition, I propose to the US Congress that all aid to Israel – both military and non-military – be permanently canceled. That aid should be redirected to Egypt’s people.”

The United States has funneled billions of dollars per year, since the Carter administration’s famous Camp David accords went into effect. This was nothing more than a cheap attempt to buy peace…no, make that a “transparent attempt” because there was never anything “cheap” about it. And peace was not purchased. A certain status quo was obtained, favorable to Israeli and US interests. And to the interests of local tyrants propped up by the United States.

And now change is in the wind. And Israel is worried about an “extremist” Islamic government taking over in Egypt. Israel is concerned that Egypt might not continue to honor President Carter’s peace treaty. Israel never cared for the poor, suppressed Muslim man in the street in Gaza City, Cairo, Jerusalem, or in the various refugee camps in Lebanon or the West Bank. Israel never even cared for the Muslim citizens within its own borders – not even those who are Israeli citizens. So much for “loving the stranger” – one of the tenets of Judaism.

And change is in the wind. And Hilary Clinton is worried. So is Obama. And the heads of the various European states. The unspoken “change” is that Muslims might not only establish individual Islamic societies within their own borders; the absolutely gut-wrenching horror is that a new transnational Caliphate might emerge. And we certainly couldn’t have that, now could we? For such a power might want nuclear weapons. And, as we all know, only White “civilized” men are to be trusted with that kind of power. For as we all “know,” a Muslim is a crazy who is not to be trusted.

It’s not like the White man, with his overkill nuking capability, had ever threatened world peace. No sir. We did not seek to terrorize our enemies but instead had established world peace through Mutual Assured Destruction. And, as we all know, White men could never have accidentally plunged the world into a nuclear war. We’re simply too smart to let that happen. But, hey, we don’t know how “smart” would be the leadership of any emerging Caliphate.

My faith in you

To the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan (to name but a few), I say I have faith in you. If it comes to pass that you wish to bypass an all-too-corruptible democracy, I say, “More power to you, and my best wishes.” If you wish to establish Islamic republics or even Islamic monarchies, that is your privilege and I will respect your wishes. Some of my countrymen believe you to be barbarians who wish to turn back the hands of time. For my own part, I don’t think modernity is all it’s cracked up to be. And as for you being “barbarians,” we in my own country have had shameful episodes in that regard.

And as for “democracy,” it’s a mixed blessing at best. But, unfortunately, it has been hopelessly perverted in my own country by the partisans of special interests and by a citizenry that doesn’t seem able to rise to the challenge of self-improvement. As a Buddhist, I have learned that the rule of a sage-king is the ideal. The “world” is urging Muslims to embrace democracy, so that Israel will not be the only democracy in the Middle East. What the “world” conveniently overlooks: Israel is not a democracy; it is a virtual theocracy. But…you already know that.

I have been impressed by the Muslims I’ve met throughout my life. For the most part, I’ve sensed a wish on their part to be treated fairly and decently. And I’ve sensed the beauty of faith in their personal lives. So when my peers cower in fear of a militant, retribution-seeking Caliphate, I don’t share their prejudice. I feel you want to establish a society of values and that you are not hateful people. Although I understand what makes you angry: Foreign intervention and exploitation.

After the uncertainty passes and the dust settles, I think you’ll surprise the world with your nobility of spirit. I invite you: Show us what an unfettered, unoppressed Islamic society can do.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“We all knew this day was coming – the day of a general uprising in the Middle East. I hope and pray we all make the best of it” – Steve.

In refutation of the Abrahamists

We Buddhists have been too circumspect in refuting Western religions. Maybe some of us think the Abrahamists have to work it out themselves. Maybe...but that hasn't happened. They just get deeper into the muck of their own self-righteousness and limited world view.

We can disagree without being disagreeable - but we mustn't be shy about voicing our disagreements. And part of that “voicing” should include “God talk” – even though Buddhists don’t believe in God. A couple of “for instances”:

For instance # 1

“We should appreciate God for giving us our lives.”

My response: "And what did we have (what were we) before God gave us life? What was the ‘us’ that God gave life to when he gave it to each of us before (obviously) we were alive to appreciate this gift? And why are we better off having this thing called life? What were we - before being granted life - that could have appreciated the difference?"

No one "gave" us life - we've always had it and always will. Each of us is alive (actually, "is alive again") because it was time for us to wake up (be reborn) from the sleep (dormancy) we were in after our previous life ended.

For instance # 2

I was once told that proof of God's existence is inferable, being based on the complexity of creation itself. "Only a Supreme Creator could have crafted such a mysterious and unfathomable work."

To which I would ask: "And what was It that, in turn, had created such a Supreme Creator? For surely such an awesome Supreme Creator must have, in turn, been created by Something even awesomer."

What too many people fail to appreciate is the fundamental Is-ness of the Universe. Put another way: It is what it is and doesn’t need to do anything; doesn't need to "accomplish" anything; doesn't need to go anywhere - It simply Is.

If something appears complex to us, we don't have to jump to any conclusion that a Superior Craftsman must have created it. All we have to realize is, we don't understand or see the underlying mechanisms which brought it about. It's okay - really it is - to say, "I don't understand."

Could this be true: The greatest power of God must be to create other Gods. In effect, that's the essence of Buddhism, which I'll restate: "The greatest power of a Buddha must be to create other Buddhas." [And Buddhists make no bones about that; that’s a given.]

For instance # 3

You don't have to look too hard to see how tightly the Abrahamists embrace the secular state. In fact, more than embrace statism, they worship it. The Zionist Jews sought safety in the creation of their own nation because they didn't feel protected while living as communities in other nations. There are Muslims who long for the re-establishment of a Caliphate in order to nurture the ideal Islamic society, as well as for protection against the imperialism of the infidels.

Then there are Bible Belt Americans - specifically the kind who refer to theirs as a Christian nation [“Love it or leave it.”]. The kind who don't have much use for diversity - at least, not religious diversity.

The Buddhists have a role model, on the other hand, which refutes all of the arguments of the statists. Shakyamuni Buddha was a prince who gave up his throne - who gave up his country - in order to reach out to as many as possible to preach his message. Shakyamuni’s message was: “Each of us truly stands alone, without family, without country, without home – without any assistance in our search for enlightenment. Except for that rendered by fellow seekers of the Way and, should we be fortunate enough, by Buddhas.”

The true state-of-being exists within, and the sooner we get rid of the sovereign national state, the more security each of us will have.

Imagine, for one thing, not having to flush trillions of dollars down the toilet by not having to maintain standing armies.

Imagine that.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"The sovereign state is the greatest enemy of Enlightenment. It seeks only its own perpetuation at the expense of everything else - even of life on earth if necessary" - Steve.

Was the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile?

My answer

No, Muhammad was not a pedophile. That's my answer, even though he had married Aisha, one of his 13 wives, when she was six and he was 54. This marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine years old.

Background comment

This comment deals with why I ask this (title) question in the first place: I just finished reading Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali, now an atheist after having been a Muslim in her formative years, brought up the subject in Infidel.

So, being the modern man that I am, I searched the internet. I saw that many who have a problem with Muhammad, because of Aisha, also have problems with Islam in general. I have not encountered any instance of Muslims expressing even mild disapproval of this marriage - then or now.

But I can see why Infidel's author was bothered enough to at least bring up the subject. Though it seems much of Ali's discomfort stems from non-Islamic forces: The clannish patriarchal system of her native Somalia and the pre-Islamic custom of Female Genital Mutilation widely practiced in many African countries. Though Ali is not an Islamic scholar, her voice definitely adds a needed dimension to issues pertinent to (especially) immigrant Muslim communities in the West.

About Muhammad and Aisha and the Dalai Lama

The biggest reason I don't have a problem with Aisha's pre-teen marriage is, Muslims don't seem to have a problem with it. And it is here that I want to tread very carefully: Muslims consider slandering or insulting the Prophet to be a grave offense. However, I am not as concerned with slandering the Prophet as I am about distressing Muslims. These are flesh and blood, real live people to whom the teachings of Muhammad are profound.

Would I slander someone's father? Would I heap scorn on someone's brother or sister? Would I disrespect someone's son or daughter? No, to all of these questions, simply because that "someone" would not tend to be as receptive to anything else I might have to say. It is true that I have disparaged the Pope and the Dalai Lama but they are merely ordinary mortals, not on the same level nor as central to their faith traditions as are, say, Jesus aka “The Word” and Shakyamuni Buddha...or Muhammad.

In the case of Aisha, I can only wrap my mind around her marriage by reason of exceptionalism. That is, if Aisha had been divinely intended for Muhammad, then I will not argue against the will of Allah. But if 40-year-old Joe Shmo down the street wanted to marry his 10-year-old neighbor, I'd have a problem with that.

[Wait...(pause)...maybe not. Maybe Joe Shmo also falls under the rubric of exceptionalism. Everything depends on context – for example, how the 10-year-old girl feels (let’s assume we’re dealing with a female here). And her father. And the community. If Joe Shmo can somehow overcome (shall we say?) “negative feedback,” then perhaps Joe is exceptional. However, (shall we also say?), “The burden of proof is on Joe.”]

In like manner, I've heard criticism of the Dalai Lama for having his kin working in high-level positions in his government. I, speaking as a Buddhist, can only say: "Well, why not? People who were disciples of a great leader in a past life could well be expected to be reincarnated as a relative in this life." [Exceptionalism, once again rears its head.] Not that I'm saying the Dalai Lama is a "great leader," for his message is too narrow and, I think, soon after his passing, he shall be quickly forgotten - both his person and his particular message.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I have heard that Ayaan is despised by many in her original homeland, Somalia. And others hold her in low regard for having forsaken Islam, currently embracing atheism instead. However, since Ayaan is only 40-years-old and, as her book Infidel reveals, has always been a seeker, I sense she will abandon atheism. Worse than her embrace of atheism, though, is her embrace of the American Enterprise Institute. But I suppose she had to grab a lifeline when it was thrown to her - when she had to flee for her life from Holland, the job AEI offered here in the States was truly a life saver.

I sense in Ayaan Hirsi Ali an intelligent and independent woman who will sooner than later move away from the AEI. The stench of the company that group provides will prove too overpowering.

I think Ayaan has a lot to offer her fellow Muslims, and they will find a way to process what she'll have to say, after they find a way to forgive/reconcile with her. And she will find a way to promote her message - after she discovers exactly what that message is. Toward that end, I would encourage her to pray or elsewise engage in a spiritual practice.

Muslims in general

Ah, that's a tough one. How can I speak of Muslims in general? The rich Saudi prince doesn't have much in common with the taxi cab driver in Gaza city or the followers of any of the Iranian ayatollahs. Or the rice farmer in Indonesia. In the final analysis, it won't matter how I react to these different Muslims. It will matter far more how they react to each other.

That being said, I find it ironic that Muslims swear a belief in the End of Days (especially, if that Day is to come any time soon), since it will take a long time (centuries?) for them to discover each other. [And I think Allah would be pleased if they did...but, again, that takes time. So how could He destroy the world before giving His flock enough time.] If, however, something which Muslims can call an End of Days occurs (though I as a Buddhist might give it another name, such as the end of a kalpa), I sincerely hope that Day won't occur until Muslims work out their differences and show the rest of us what it means to be an ideal Muslim in this day and age.

[Yes, that's a friendly challenge and an invitation, since I have a lot of faith in you.]

I feel a kinship with Muslims, though I know only a few of them personally. What I've read in books and seen in movies (especially these movies) has influenced me greatly:

Battle of Algiers (1966, directed by Pontecorvo)

Brothers (2004, directed by Bier)

Cache (2005, directed by Haneke)

Days of Glory (2006, directed by Bouchareb)

Iron Island (2006, directed by Rasoulof)

Osama (2003, directed by Barmak) [Nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, by the way.]

Secret of the Grain (2007, directed by Kechiche)

I eagerly await the contributions Muslims have yet to make in answer to:

What is the ideal society? Who should rule? In an Islamic society, what forms could dissent, loyal opposition, and expressions of individuality take? What constitutes good behavior? How will you treat those who have mistreated you [US military should have more than a passing interest in this one]?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractor’s Party

"I couldn't help but notice that the famous narcissist Christopher Hitchens had written the foreword to Infidel. Hitch is well known for having written, God is Not Great. He might want to read Hitchens is Not God by Great. Just saying" - Steve.