On Identity: 1- We Can Relate

With the whole Country boiling over the Egypt-Algeria match in Sudan, a lot of seemingly patriotic statements have been made by public figures, as well as the public itself.

And it has struck me many times, that there's a chance many of those people may be confusing patriotism with arrogance, intolerance, or the simple thirst for vengeance.

And I've seen it in many different shapes. Some people are calling their anger patriotism and glorifying it, others are using the anger of others to make themselves popular by playing up the patriotic tone, while some people are just excited at all the energy on the media.

Some people are using the energy in the masses to affirm their Egyptian identity, and some are very upset that the Egyptian identity is being celebrated over the Islamic or Arabic one, and others are looking at all the above and hating it, because all they see is the violence and chaos resulting from it.

So to set myself straight, I wanted to try and define what being an Egyptian means to me, at the huge risk of getting it all wrong!

See, I will probably get it wrong, because as a friend told me many years ago, I doubt anybody can accurately define patriotism, least of all someone with my modest education on the subject.

But perhaps getting it somewhat wrong is a step forward from what is happening now, which is people confusing it with all sorts of other things, ruining it for the rest of us.

So here we go:

Patriotism is a heart-felt belonging to... something,

let's say it is -for simplicity, not accuracy- a place.

Through that sense of belonging, patriots feel they can relate to their "people", this does something very important, it connects people, based on only one similarity, regardless of all their differences.

That "creates" a nation, it ties people together with a bond, and allows them to gather around a common flag, and pursue similar goals.

And trust me, that is a wonderful feeling, to belong.

To have a bigger family to which you can relate, and with whom you can dream similar dreams, and talk in the same comfortable tongue about the same comfortable things, and cooperate to achieve the same goals.

It is a power and a privilege, and it could be intimate beyond all words, beautiful beyond all pictures, and valuable beyond all treasures.

Now, since we came to mention treasures, then naturally we must speak of thieves, con-men, beggars and the police!

And we'll get to that in the next post.

Pope Shenouda the Third's "After Death There is no Repentance" sermon

Pope Shenouda III has a popular sermon that preaches the importance of Repentance before Death

First time I heard it, it was a bit longer than the video linked to above, and a bit worse.

A friend was playing it from his mobile phone to me, sharing it with me as something he liked.

My reaction was immediate and surprised even me, I was very sad, and with a serious face I told him that this is full of wrong ideas!

Now I've been seeing it a lot, tossed around the internet, so I'll try to explain here why I hate it.

Note: I will ignore the teaching in it that concerns the idea of "repentance after death", it is not the focus of this entry.

The main problems with this bit of spiritual teaching are:

1- It is investing in guilt. We may disagree how useful that is, but in all cases it is a cheap shot. It can make an old, good woman feel scared to death. Can we at least agree that this is not a good thing?

2- The idea that we repent to be saved from Hell is just flat out wrong, to put it mildly. We stay with God because we love God. You don't get married (The Bride & Groom metaphor is probably the most biblically common to describe our relationship to God) to someone you hate but fear. You do not get married to avoid his wrath!

3- The idea about Repentance, as if it is something to be done but we're too lazy to, is absurd. That is especially true about the part where someone would say "I will repent before I die".

I have only one proper response to this, have you ever thought like this? Don't tell me that some people do, I am asking about you (& don't answer, just think about it). Have you ever thought like this?? Well, you can't really think like this, I'll get to why later.

4- The idea about repentance shows that the idea on Sin isn't very sound either.

Whoever sins is a slave. Slaves are poor wretches who have little control over their lives, and cannot just "quit" being slaves.

Repentance is the liberating force coming from God, that we have to accept and so be free.

Any mention of repentance -after Christ came- that doesn't include Christ as part of the equation is misleading.

The epitome of wrong ideas about Sin is the part where we may say a sinner is effectively telling God "I hate you and defy you, and will keep hating you & defying you till I die".

Now, some people might actually say that at some point, some people are angry with God, and some even hate Him... but those are the ones who do not know Him, do not believe in His goodness or do not believe in His love. They may well say they will hate & defy God, but it won't be because they think they have a long life ahead of them & they plan to repent right before dying!

This brings us back to what makes repentance right before death a comical idea! Sin makes you miserable here and now, on this earth & in this life. If you realize that then postponing your freedom would be a bad joke, exactly like a slave thinking "hmm... I could stay enslaved, be flogged by my cruel master all my life, then pack up & leave five minutes before I die!"

If, however, you do not realize that, or you hate God and don't know Him, then you won't be thinking that you'll repent at all, not ever!

You see, it is comical because it cannot actually happen. You don't think like that if you actually are a sinner. So if you do think that, you couldn't actually be one of those sinners (because you don't seem to know what it does to you!), nor actually hate God (because you wouldn't think you'll repent later on)... you would just be a misguided person.

5- The idea about "people in hell" and how they wish for a minute of life on earth to repent is very sad, but it's also very untrue. It seems we have forgotten what hell is.

Let me elaborate, you live blind & separated from God, then you die and you stay blind & separated from God, this is what we call hell (whether you believe the Fire and Brimstone is literal or not, that statement holds true).

Now, nothing much has changed, you've just departed this world into another, with the same pain & agony. This means that a person in hell would not be wishing for a moment in life to repent, he would be cursing himself & others & maybe even God, but he wouldn't repent (for that is what "wishing to repent" effectively is, from the human side, followed by God intervening) & not be heard.

St. Isaac the Syrian has some excellent writings on this subject, I would strongly recommend reading them.

All the above, as well as other ideas, feelings and sensibilities, make me see this part-of-a-sermon as really harmful.

This is serious, people... The presentation itself is not theoretical theological teaching, but it is a by-product of many misconceptions about Sin, Repentance, Hell, People and God. And when you mix it with some nice Christian Graphics and some sad music, you get a pop product that can affect people badly, without them even noticing.

I'd like you to understand that if I do believe all what i said above (and I do), then I cannot just shut up about it, I must say why I think it's wrong & harmful teaching, in the hope that someone would see the harm and avoid it. So with all due respect for HH Pope Shenouda III, I cannot refrain from writing all that out of respect for him or anybody else, because this is not about him.

If I am wrong about all that, that would be fine and I accept to be taught with a more enlightened teaching; but I cannot believe it's harmful and just sit & watch it circulate without so much as a comment.

Surge of Passion

I'm a Patriot.

Okay, so you don't know what that is... fine. The term has been losing its meaning gradually for a few generations now, so I can hardly blame you. (hmm... how old am I again?)

Patriotism might be distantly related to how someone might feel towards Egypt winning The African Cup of Nations, and it might be a bit more closely related to what makes people write songs like these... but it's NOT that, it's not football and music.

It's more.

And no, it's not about our family and our circle of friends (and for Christian copts, our local Church communities)... That is a myth.

I used to believe that too, by the way. But it's not true, and take it from someone who has experienced freedom from all that, but still felt tied to Egypt more than ever.

After getting married, I am no longer that strongly attached to my bigger family, yet I am just as attached -if not more- to my Country.

And I've lost old friends, made new friends, and got separated from both old & new friends too many times, but that didn't make me feel separated from Egypt.

And for many reasons, I have almost disappeared from my local Church community, and that did not make me feel any less Egyptian.

Oh and by the way, it isn't about memories either.

After some time, memories are forgotten, or rather abstracted into impressions, or morphed into idealistic recollections.

But I'm here, now.

I'm in Egypt, today, and I have no illusions of a startlingly bright near future, nor hazy recollections of a happy childhood.

I see all the corruption around me,

and I ache with it.

And I do NOT want to leave the Country.

I want to die nursing her.

But I sometimes think that it's just me... when I talk passionately about Egypt, people start to give me a curious look like I'm talking in Hindi, or -more commonly- their eyes just start to glaze over!

And I do not get it, at all... it's not that people should have strong feelings towards their Country, it's just that I don't understand how they don't!

I actually feel I need it! I need the strong feelings, I need the fight in me to rise up when Egypt's going down, and I need the surge of passion that I get when I hear or talk about my Egypt.

I could almost see the look you're giving me now!

It'd usually be like: chill out dude!

It's funny, I used to always associate us -Egyptians- with a fiery attitude.

No, not exactly like the one following a truck crashing into your car's trunk in a traffic jam on the 6th of October bridge, but not entirely alien to it either.

That street-quarrel attitude might just be a manifestation of something we cannot fully bring to life anymore.

I don't know, but we as a whole used to care about what happens to us, and what happens to us as a whole, too.

We had passion.

Now why did that die?

I know, there are lots of reasons -almost too many- to choose from,

and may God forgive those who killed our passion, killing us.

I know, it's such a loose blog entry, and I've gone on for too long.

But I have one more question, or maybe two.

Did our Patriotism really die?

I see it in many places, though sometimes indirectly. (I would argue -a lot- that this is true, unbridled Patriotism)

But I swear, I can see we still ache with the Country, and in much more than a purely pragmatic manner.

I can still see us being sentimental hotheads about our Egypt sometimes.

Is that real? And if it is, what is preserving it against everything else smothering it??

The "Discussing the Devine Comedy with Dante" Painting

Just thought I'd share this :)


Discussing the Divine Comedy with Dante

Marge Simpson makes cover of Playboy

Marge Simpson makes cover of Playboy

Err... Seriously?!

Playboy said the cover and a three-page picture spread inside was a celebration of the 20th anniversary of the "The Simpsons" and part of a plan to appeal to a younger generation of readers.

A plan to appeal to a younger generation of readers, now that's just...

Scott Flanders, the recently-hired chief executive of Playboy Enterprises, told the Chicago Sun-Times in an interview that the Marge Simpson cover and centerfold was "somewhat tongue-in-cheek."

Oh and for us Simpsons' fans, the CEO's called Flanders, too...

Seriously?!!!

On Relativism: 5- Pragmatism

The following is a scene from G. K. Chesterton's play "Magic" (which some say inspired Ingmar Bergman's film "The Magician"). A little clarification may be needed. Smith is a Christian Pastor, and the Doctor is a firm skeptic of all things religious. This scene takes place in The Duke of the parish's house, right after his nephew suffers from a sort of shock after he fails to explain a seemingly supernatural event.

Smith: And what harm came of believing in Apollo? And what a mass of harm may have come of not believing in Apollo? Does it never strike you that doubt can be a madness, as well be faith? That asking questions may be a disease, as well as proclaiming doctrines? You talk of religious mania! Is there no such thing as irreligious mania? Is there no such thing in the house at this moment?

Doctor: Then you think no one should question at all.

Smith: [With passion, pointing to the next room.] I think that is what comes of questioning! Why can't you leave the universe alone and let it mean what it likes? Why shouldn't the thunder be Jupiter? More men have made themselves silly by wondering what the devil it was if it wasn't Jupiter.

Doctor. [Looking at him.] Do you believe in your own religion?

Smith: [Returning the look equally steadily.] Suppose I don't: I should still be a fool to question it. The child who doubts about Santa Claus has insomnia. The child who believes has a good night's rest.

Doctor: You are a Pragmatist.

I had wanted to write this post for over a year now, & start it with that particular scene, but didn't quite know how to approach it best.

I think now I do.

What G. K. Chesterton is demonstrating here and later on in the play, is that Rev. Smith is not a believer at all, in fact he is not that much different from the skeptic doctor in that regard. He is merely a pragmatist. He believes that religion affects people positively in the practical sense, hence it should be adopted.

Now consider this:

Someone says they believe in some religious belief, and it suits them. However, they think it might not suit somebody else.

This is becoming a classical relativist statement. Now I'd like to draw your attention to two things, one of them I've always thought is clear as daylight, the other I've only noticed yesterday.

The first is what I referred to before in the second part of this series, how "A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos." as per -incidentally- G. K. Chesterton.

Which I think is pretty easy to understand; you may say that a certain work of art doesn't suit your taste, but a Religion, a Cosmic Philosophy, can't possibly be personal taste. It is about the Universe, not only about you!

Except if...

What if we sometimes think of a Religion mainly in terms of how useful it is to us?

You know, belief in heavenly reward makes people do good things, belief in hell as punishment stops people from doing bad things to each other, religion in general helps answer existential questions... etc.

That is the second implication of discussing religion as a relative idea... that I might be seeing it only in the light of what it brings to me.

If so, then the idea of "suits me, but not necessarily everybody" can be very true!

For example, it suits me to fear hell as punishment, but maybe it'll drive someone else to rebellion rather than submission to God (An atheist I've actually corresponded with wrote that they'd rather believe in no god than believe in my cruel god), therefore it does not suit them.

This means that what we're talking about now, is how said religion affects you, rather than the beliefs of the religion itself.

That is all very well of course, but that is not belief at all!

Like the Doctor said in the scene from the play, that is just pragmatism.

Believing that practical effects of a certain belief are good is not, of course, a bad thing. But believing in a certain doctrine merely for its practical effects, surely is.

It has nothing to do with how true you believe your religion is.

And I thought we were looking for the Truth... weren't we?

Where have You gone?

Why should memories be desired, be they clear as could be?

Am I blind because I forgot, how the hurt cease to see?

Can I settle for stale bread, having tasted the daily one?

My Lord, My God, but where have You gone?

On Relativism: 4- Uncertainty

I have been seriously struggling with this idea for a while now...

Why is it not intellectually fashionable anymore to be certain of anything?

Maybe it's because we have gone wrong too many times, that we no longer trusts our minds enough to claim certainty?

And although that might sound reasonable, I'd like to draw your attention to what's really at stake here.

If we'll discuss certainty vs. uncertainty, truth vs. perspective, or the fixed character of virtue vs. moral relativism, we're treading on the borders of insanity and nightmares!

Anybody who's ever been a real skeptic would know what I'm talking about here, but for those who have been spared, I present this story:

(I'm copying the whole thing here rather than just linking to it because my post is too attached to that essay... you could say that this post is holding on to its sanity by copying the whole essay within its body, even if that makes it too fat!)

The Extroardinary Cabman.

By G. K. Chesterton

From: London's Daily News and Tremendous Trifles

From time to time I have introduced into this newspaper column the narration of incidents that have really occurred. I do not mean to insinuate that in this respect it stands alone among newspaper columns. I mean only that I have found that my meaning was better expressed by some practical parable out of daily life than by any other method; therefore I propose to narrate the incident of the extraordinary cabman, which occurred to me only three days ago, and which, slight as it apparently is, aroused in me a moment of genuine emotion bordering upon despair.

On the day that I met the strange cabman I had been lunching in a little restaurant in Soho in company with three or four of my best friends. My best friends are all either bottomless sceptics or quite uncontrollable believers, so our discussion at luncheon turned upon the most ultimate and terrible ideas. And the whole argument worked out ultimately to this: that the question is whether a man can be certain of anything at all. I think he can be certain, for if (as I said to my friend, furiously brandishing an empty bottle) it is impossible intellectually to entertain certainty, what is this certainty which it is impossible to entertain? If I have never experienced such a thing as certainty I cannot even say that a thing is not certain. Similarly, if I have never experienced such a thing as green I cannot even say that my nose is not green. It may be as green as possible for all I know if I have really no experience of greenness. So we shouted at each other and shook the room; because metaphysics is the only thoroughly emotional thing. And the difference between us was very deep, because it was a difference as to the object of the whole thing called broad-mindedness or the opening of the intellect. For my friend said that he opened his intellect as the sun opens the fans of a palm tree, opening for opening¹s sake, opening infinitely for ever. But I said that I opened my intellect as I opened my mouth, in order to shut it again on something solid. I was doing it at the moment. And as I truly pointed out, it would look uncommonly silly if I went on opening my mouth infinitely, for ever and ever.

[Editor's Note - From other writings of Chesterton, we know that the "open-minded" friend referred to here is H.G. Wells. Also, we learn from the paragraph to follow that Hilaire Belloc was another of those present at this Soho meeting. And it is quite possible, even probable, that George Bernard Shaw was also in the party.]

Now when this argument was over, or at least when it was cut short (for it will never be over), I went away with one of my companions, who in the confusion and comparative insanity of a General Election had somehow become a member of Parliament, and I drove with him in a cab from the corner of Leicester Square to the members' entrance of the House of Commons, where the police received me with a quite unusual tolerance. Whether they thought that he was my keeper or that I was his keeper is a discussion between us which still continues.

It is necessary in this narrative to preserve the utmost exactitude of detail. After leaving my friend at the House I took the cab on a few hundred yards to an office in Victoria Street which I had to visit. I then got out and offered him more than his fare. He looked at it, but not with the surly doubt and general disposition to try it on which is not unknown among normal cabmen. But this was no normal, perhaps, no human, cabman. He looked at it with a dull and infantile astonishment, clearly quite genuine. "Do you know, sir," he said, "you've only given me 1s. 8d?" I remarked, with some surprise, that I did know it. "Now you know, sir," said he in a kindly, appealing, reasonable way, "you know that ain't the fare form Euston." "Euston," I repeated vaguely, for the phrase at that moment sounded to me like China or Arabia. "What on earth has Euston got to do with It?" "You hailed me just outside Euston Station," began the man with astonishing precision, "and then you said ..." "What in the name of Tartarus are you talking about?" I said with Christian forbearance; "I took you at the south-west corner of Leicester Square." "Leicester Square," he exclaimed, loosening a kind of cataract of scorn, "why we ain't been near Leicester Square to-day. You hailed me outside Euston Station, and you said ..." "Are you mad, or am I?" I asked with scientific calm.

I looked at the man. No ordinary dishonest cabman would think of creating so solid and colossal and creative a lie. And this man was not a dishonest cabman. If ever a human face was heavy and simple and humble, and with great big blue eyes protruding like a frog's, if ever (in short) a human face was all that a human face should be, it was the face of that resentful and respectful cabman. I looked up and down the street; an unusually dark twilight seemed to be coming on. And for one second the old nightmare of the sceptic put its finger on my nerve. What was certainty? Was anybody certain of anything? Heavens! to think of the dull rut of the sceptics who go on asking whether we possess a future life. The exciting question for real scepticism is whether we possess past life. What is a minute ago, rationalistically considered, except a tradition and a picture? The darkness grew deeper from the road. The cabman calmly gave me the most elaborate details of the gesture, the words, the complex but consistent course of action which I had adopted since that remarkable occasion when I had hailed him outside Euston Station. How did I know (my sceptical friends would say) that I had not hailed him outside Euston. I was firm about my assertion; he was quite equally firm about his. He was obviously quite as honest a man as I, and a member of a much more respectable profession. In that moment the universe and the stars swung just a hair's breadth from their balance, and the foundations of the earth were moved. But for the same reason that I believe in Democracy, for the same reason that I believe in free will, for the same reason that I believe in fixed character of virtue, the reason that could only be expressed by saying that I do not choose to be a lunatic, I continued to believe that this honest cabman was wrong, and I repeated to him that I had really taken him at the corner of Leicester Square. He began with the same evident and ponderous sincerity, "You hailed me outside Euston Station, and you said ..."

And at this moment there came over his features a kind of frightful transfiguration of living astonishment, as if he had been lit up like a lamp from the inside. "Why, I beg your pardon, sir," he said. "I beg your pardon. I beg your pardon. You took me from Leicester Square. I remember now. I beg your pardon." And with that this astonishing man let out his whip with a sharp crack at his horse and went trundling away. The whole of which interview, before the banner of St. George I swear, is strictly true.

I looked at the strange cabman as he lessened in the distance and the mists. I do not know whether I was right in fancying that although his face had seemed so honest there was something unearthly and demoniac about him when seen from behind. Perhaps he had been sent to tempt me from my adherence to those sanities and certainties which I had defended earlier in the day. In any case it gave me pleasure to remember that my sense of reality, though it had rocked for an instant, had remained erect.

The Extraordinary Cabman first appeared in London's Daily News. It was later collected in the volume of essays Tremendous Trifles.

Do you see what I mean now? If you take skepticism to its limit, and wear relativism as your crown, eventually your whole head will disappear!

And I can't stress enough how terrifying that is to me.

Maybe that's why I need Truth, and can't understand for the life of me how anybody can reduce it to a point of view.

On Hijab's Martyrdom

I remember reading in a Cilantro's (a coffeeshop) monthly publication (I know!) a couple of years ago an article about Empowering the Veiled Woman, and thinking "does she really need more empowerement? it seems to me that in Egypt, she's almost invincible!"

Recently, the empowerement campaign took a new direction, for it no longer became limited to peer pressure, repentant-actresses/bellydancers-turned-preachers on TV shows, stickers on public transportation windows or the occasional newspaper article on the importance of Hijab.

After the death of Marwa El Sherbini, our good old media started placing their bets on the "Martyr of Hijab" horse.

First off I have to state (preemptively) that Marwa's death is truly tragic, it is a horrific thing that she was killed, as well as why she was killed.

That said, let's admit we have a very advanced Martyr Complex in Egypt, and that complex has driven us to turn Marwa into an icon.

Which is okay, really... maybe she should be iconized, maybe not... but that's hardly the issue here.

The issue is that iconizing Marwa isn't enough for certain people, because Marwa is a person... and a dead one at that!

Those people would much rather iconize something that is alive and well, and make it even more alive by iconizing it.

That thing is of course the Hijab.

Which is a joke, really!

You want to know why Hijab can't be a martyr? Or a flag under which martyrs can gather?!

Because outside Europe, and particularly in Egypt, there is hardly anybody who wants it dead, so it can never become a martyr!

Go for a walk down the streets of Egypt and take a look around...

If you would rather remain at home, read this

And If you don't feel like clicking on the above link, here's a bottom line:

ولعل المثير أخيراً هو ما يتنطع به أشباه الكتبة بزعمهم أن الحجاب مستهدف فى مصر، وهذا لغو ينفيه الواقع تماماً، فنظرة واحدة على أى شارع فى أى مدينة مصرية، تؤكد أن غير المحجبة الآن هى إحدى اثنتين: فإما أن تكون مسيحية، أو من بقايا النخبة الاجتماعية التى لم ترضخ بعد لابتزاز الغزو الوهابى، واختارت.. وتحملت ثمن حريتها، رغم محاولات مروجى الهوس الدينى لممارسة الوصاية على خلق الله.

Have some logic, because you can't make Hijab both dominant and oppressed.

And if you manage to, well that says a lot about those who buy your shit.

Can It Ever Work? ii

One of the main points of an article I've just read recently, is how our low self-esteem (with just reason, we're a country corrupt to the marrow!) is actually causing our superficial religiousness.

Along with Python's comments on the previous post, I think we can start thinking in the direction that one way to remedy our combined corruption/fanaticism is to try and replace value in people's lives.

Now what can possibly inject value into a bloated, vulgar and empty-headed community?

It could be rewarding work, it could be intellectual stimulation (yes, I know the term sounds too haughty for the street quality of the problem, but play along will ya!), and it could be... love.

I personally believe that Love gives lovers a sense of value, as well as purpose and (usually) compassion. And oh how we need value, purpose & compassion!

I'm open to suggestions to other alternatives, but for now at least, I have this list of values.

Now all we need is a strategic plan detailing how to promote those vaules, I guess.

And in the way of progressive revelation, let that be continued...

Can It Ever Work?

I've been feeling down today...

Probably because I've read this, watched this, and then thought about this:

Are people really are so impossible to enlighten?

Tarek Heggy seemed to be saying that although he works so that light will somehow get through, his hopes are rather low that it will!

Then there's that video...

The simple question of "Why is a group of Christians praying in a place "without a license" a problem for anybody" simply had no reasonable answer.

I'd understand it being a problem if you're a policemen charged with upholding the law (regardless how outrageous that law may be)... but if you're a layman who breaks a dozen laws a day, and then you get worked up enough about Christians praying "without a license" (ugh, I can't believe I'm actually arguing about this!) to commit acts of violence to stop it, and you happen to have tens or hundreds of like-minded people with you... then you can't possibly tell me it's because "they have no license" or "they're breaking the law"! And the "eye witness" was honest (ha!) enough about it to say his problem is "they're too few"!!!!

The fact that people can be so hateful, ignorant and illogical, and harm others because of that, cobined with the incredible notion that they can get away with it and even get official support from a senator to do it, makes Tarek Heggy too right! There seems to be a lack of will to change on the streets as well as in the top-floor offices.

Then to try & cheer myself up, I decided to read anything for G. K. Chesterton off the web.

It worked for a little while, too well in fact, that it made me think again about why almost nobody knows this guy

And that got me back into the pithole...

Because it seems that being insightful, compassionate, funny, wise and right doesn't necessarily lead to making a change at all!

and I started wondering (forgive my arrogance) if maybe I can be like Chesterton; but like Chesterton, would make no difference whatsoever in changing people or the events they cause to happen, so that it would lead to a brighter future.

That's a serious frustration because as I believe it, things and people on all levels must eventually and through providence, be enlightened.

and like Switchfoot put it, the tension is between how it is and how it should be.

that tension is... well... such a bummer!

In Providence

I've been blessed enough to see providence up close.

I remember how I thought that I needed to make a certain amount of money to be able to sustain my family in Egypt, and how I was offered 500 pounds more.

And lately I've felt that we need a bit more money, and I was thinking that if my wife gets any job, we'll need that job to pay a certain amount of money, and guess what happens? A job comes along, and she gets offered 500 pounds more!

I like knowing that I get more than I hope for, and I like feeling safe to hope for more.

I also like how the word providence is related to the word provide,

Fittingly enough, one can etymologically link providence to providing to vision.

I like God providing for us, and I like it when I can spot a larger vision than mine in what he causes to happen with us.

So this is to remind myself of you, your thoughts and your work, Father...

Thank You, I love You.

Don't Insult Our Intellegence

For self-educational purposes, I've spent some time watching the Eqraa Channel.

At first, I caught that Mostafa Hosny guy... and I must admit that watching him took a lot of self-restraint, because that guy manages to be all touchy-feely while putting on a macho attitude, which is no mean feat I'm sure, but it gets on my nerves like nothing else, even before I've listened to what he has to say!

Then I came across some programme episodes for Basma Wahba, one of them is the infamous "Wa Ma Malakat Aymanakom" show where she plays cat & mouse with two Azhar proffessors.

In that show, she keeps asking & they keep avoiding her questions.

The show features one angry proffessor who storms out midway through the show then comes back (I'm not sure how the producers brought him back, maybe they waved some contract at him & threatened a lawsuit, or maybe they talked him into having a drink of yansoon then grovelled a bit... I don't know, and I hardly care *shrugs*)

The show also features another proffessor whose motto seemed to be "When in doubt, Sing!", as he consistently chanted verses of Quran in response to every question, which would have been useful (although a tad theatrical) had the particular verses he chose provided answers to the questions, which sadly, they didn't.

Now, when I watched that Basma Wahba show, I didn't think of those people as merely addressing muslims (although of course they are), but particularly as addressing Egyptians.

The woman was Egyptian, and so were the Azhar people... and she was trying to get them to respond to Fr. Zakareya Boutros who is also Egyptian... so the whole thing felt like a local problem!

And as an Egyptian, I felt involved (although I admit, not as closely involved as any muslim watching), and as an involved party (no matter how remotely) I have a right to feel insulted by that show!

It's not that they looked like they had no answer, and it's not just that they seemed to think none was necessary... but it's mostly because they wasted more than half an hour talking & still managed to say absolutely nothing of use!

It felt very insulting to my intellegence... it's like I wasn't supposed to notice when they dodged a question by providing an irrelevent answer, or when they lingered on side topics to avoid the main issue, or when they threw up tantrums to divert attention away from their lack of knowledge, or when the "singing proffessor" started chanting to add an aura of "holiness" to the emptyness of his answers! (as well as waste programme time, get more screen time, and advertise for his chanting talents!)

That Egyptian youth have to put up with these games, along with all the arrogance, ignorance and weak arguments (if we're lucky enough to hear any arguments at all) is insulting.

And not only that, the implicit fact that Egyptian muslim youth are supposed to be like them is very, very insulting!

Egyptian muslims are supposed to repeat what those Azharians said (what was that, again?!) in response to questions about themselves, other people and God... from themselves, other people and yes maybe even from God!

So to anybody who ever assumes a position where they become teachers, please don't insult our intellegence. And if not for our sakes, let it be for your sakes, for logic's sake and for your God's sake!

The Forty Things

Hey everyone, check this out, did anyone ever see this before?

Go ahead & take a look, seriously.

No really, it's so useful. I mean this ought to lift up your spirits with the current state of the job market.

You think I'm kidding? Okay, skip the article & read the comments section...

People are all so psyched!

Some people even seem to have been rescued from suicide upon reading it. (there might be some who weren't, but I guess we'll never know how many)

Okay, seriously seriously now... what the **** is this ****?!

It's not the article itself that is making me this incredulous, I mean the article is what it is: half a joke, half commercial nonesense (it is after all, an article on Bayt, not Forbes!) and you expect nothing more from Bayt.com, nor from an article entitled "Forty Things To Do When You're Fired"!

It's the comments that really got to me.

I wanted to see comments that take the article as what it is: a joke. I only found one comment mentioning laughing about it.

Everyone seemed to take the "advice" of the article seriously.

Seriously?!!

I've been through that feeling of being unemployed before, while having responsibilities to worry about.

The feeling of panic slowly building up till it reaches your mouth, like water pouring inside a box with a rat inside and... too serious, mate, tone it down

Okay, so what I'm trying to say is that if you actually were fired or about to be, this article would drive you up the wall with its combo of desperate humor and useless pop culture advice... it's almost depressing.

And how people seemed to take it is even funnier than the article, in an even more desperate and depressing sense!

The Question, and what comes after it

A couple of days ago, I was in a bible study group with a few friends, and they started discussing the idea of Salvation and whom it is likely to encompass.

Then came the question everybody who has a heart should ask at some point:

Why would all the others who are not of whatever creed one professes, why won't they enter heaven?

In more compassionate groups (like the one I like to think I attend), the question is modified into:

Can (with a note of hope) others enter heaven? and how??

More often than not, the "how" part isn't about the means with which they may be saved, but rather how that notion can be reconciled with Scripture.

This time, I stayed silent while they debated, because I wanted the conversation to run its full course, before I ask the more or less rhetorical question that mentally knocked me out about two years ago, which is:

In your opinion, what percentage of people needs to be saved before God calls his "Creation" project a success?

I expected almost any response except the one I recieved, which was an uproar of different cries so mixed up that I couldn't understand a word anybody was saying.

This I understood though, people seemed to be saying that I was wrong to ask the question, and this notion of blasphemizing a question was probably the first of its kind for that particular group.

After the initial torrent subsided, a few people began arguing with me in an attempt to defend God, but the rest of the group seemed to want to close the subject.

And so the subject was closed hurriedly, which I didn't mind, since all I wanted was merely to put that question on the table.

The one thing I felt bad about was how the table seemed to want to slip away, and trying to hold it still is something which I wasn't about to do. (I know better than to try that)

I am writing it here though, because I feel the need for it to be out there...

So let me ask that again:

How many people need to be saved, and what is the percentage of humans throughout the history of the world that needs to be redeemed, in order for "Creation" to be deemed a successful project, one worth the trouble it's caused so far?

Oh and please bear in mind, that for an Omniscient God, that number must've been known before the beginning of Time, and with that knowledge, he still went on with creating us.

Why can't that mean something? And why shouldn't we wonder what that something is?!

The Fun Road Game of "Bingo & Oops!"

Since I 've begun to frequent the streets of Cairo more, and especially now that I've returned to it, I've struggled to determine if my fresh impressions of it have any real base lying at their core, or whether they are just illusions...

I was mainly concerned with the striking impression that the number of unveiled women is on the rise in Egypt.

So to objectively determine whether that supposition is true in the strictest scientific sense, me & my wife came up with The Road Game of "Bingo & Oops!"!

(circus music)

The rules of "Bingo, Oops!" are fairly simple, and those familiar with other road games such as "Slug-a-Bug" and "Zitch Dog" will find it just as simple. Here's how it's played:

If you spot an unveiled woman and yell "Bingo" first, you score a point. If you spot a munaqqaba woman and yell "Oops!" first, you score a point (two points if it's after dark).

If you make a mistake (like for example, you yell Oops! at the back of a woman clad in black... then as you drive past you find out that her face is not covered) you lose two points.

And here are some additional rules that stem from the higher purpose of the game, and were not in any way made-up on the fly to strike out points made by another player:

1- Bingos yelled at sightings of unveiled girls below the age of ten years old do not count. No... make that thirteen years old... In fact, make that 15 or 16 years old!

2- Bingos yelled at sightings of unveiled women who are clearly not Egyptian do not count. Example:- Filipina maid: does not count. And no, her father can't have been Egyptian!

Now I'd like to invite all of you who reside anywhere in Egypt to play along, and help yourselves assess the social makeup of Egyptian women today, and I'm sure that if you live in Cairo, you'll appreciate the endless fun the game will bring to your drives through its infamous traffic.

Have fun, and drive safely!

Warning: To be in compliance with rules of other games that might be created in the near future, this game gives you no warranty to stare at people on the street. A glance should suffice to determine whether a Bingo, an Oops or nothing at all is in order. Prolonged staring puts you under the risk of losing your recently scored point, in addition to any penalties incurred by other games and possibly crashing your car.

Post-Script by the Post:

I know that I am touching upon a certain subject, from a certain viewpoint and in a certain manner that is very likely to offend many good people in the good Country of Egypt.

However, since I am personally acquainted with this viewpoint, I've known it to be suffering for a long time from an urgent need to be expressed... And so I've dedicated myself to its expression.

Furthermore, I understand that most of the people who had been offended by laying eyes on me

-and to those I'd usually say, look the other way... though not today-

may not have been quite as offended had I not been ridiculous...

but I think the gravity of the matter called for my satirical behaviour.

For I'm sure you will agree with me, that nothing can be quite as serious as a good joke.

The Five Things

A friend bought me a book as a birthday gift, and told me she wasn't so sure what types of books I read, so she wanted me to swap that book for another from the bookstore if I didn't feel I was going to like it.

The book was entitled "The Five Things We Cannot Change: And the Happiness We Find by Embracing Them" 

This was written on the back (I took the liberty to write a few thoughts in-line):

Why is it that despite our best efforts, many of us remain fundamentally unhappy and unfulfilled in our lives? (excellent question) In this provocative and inspiring book, David Richo distills thirty years of experience as a therapist (oh-ooh...) to explain the underlying roots of unhappiness—and the surprising secret to finding freedom and fulfillment. (ok, this phrase is usually never followed by anything good)

There are certain facts of life that we cannot change—the unavoidable "givens" of human existence: (1) everything changes and ends, (2) things do not always go according to plan, (3) life is not always fair, (4) pain is a part of life, and (5) people are not loving and loyal all the time. Richo shows us that by dropping our deep-seated resistance to these givens, (huh?!) we can find liberation and discover the true richness (!!!) that life has to offer. Blending Western psychology and Eastern spirituality (not again! that cash-cow that I thought was milked for all its worth), including practical exercises, Richo shows us how to open up to our lives—including to what is frightening, painful, or disappointing—and discover our greatest gifts.

Well, needless to say, I swapped the book! (for Neil Gaiman's "The Graveyard Book", btw)

But nevertheless, I really want to talk about that "Product Description" I quoted above.

I didn't read the book, so I can't judge it well, but I'd like to judge the nonesense written on the back!

Let's start with "dropping our deep-seated resistance to these givens"...

I'm one of those people who believe that a universal deep-seated resistance to something means -in most cases- that this thing ought to be resisted!

When I tried to reduce each phrase of those "Five Things" to one word, it became a bit clearer:

(1) is Death, (2) is failure (or bracing yourself for it, expecting it), (3) is Injustice, (4) is Pain and (5) is Hatred (or at least, lack of love)

Now shouldn't these things be resisted?

Resisting (1) keeps us all alive, resisting (2) keeps all actions motivated, resisting (3) made us come up with Laws and Rights, resisting (4) made us come up with medicine (and got us all closer together), and resisting (5) promoted Love, families, friendships... Things we simply cannot do without!

And the first time I read the list of the "Five Things", I managed to find a common factor: That those things do not exist in most religions' description of Heaven, and their non-existence is actually emphasized on in Christianity.

I take that (with my Faith into account) to mean that we should resist those so-called "givens" of life.

And should work against them, rather than accepting them with  the serenity of a dead man!

In fighting them, we have a better life.

And in our version of the afterlife, we win the fight!

So I wouldn't get too used to them,

they're going to change.

To a Country

Dear Egypt,

I came back to you, to find you dying a little bit more than when I left you...

My beloved Egypt seems to be hanging herself.

But you're not just tying the rope around your neck and hopping off the chair,

(that wouldn't be appropriate for your old age, would it?)

Rather you are doing it excruciatingly slowly.

Yet surely, deliberately and unmistakebly, you are killing yourself.

Like a nightmare of a death-row prisoner, seeing himself walking his last mile, while it stretches on endlessly, neither giving him freedom nor death, neither rest nor salvation...

and to be honest with you, we are all very tired just watching your nightmare passing by!

And I beseech you:

Can't you make up your mind? Will you not choose life, or even death?!

And if you're too devided to choose, won't you at least do us the kindness of running out of wealth, so your children -your impoverished princes of thieves- would fly off to another field to lay to waste?!

Or won't you run out of fictitious enemies, so your old crones -your tormented sheikhs of hell- would devour each other instead?!

Can't you either have faith and live, or curse your gods and die?!

Yes, I finally succumbed to the temptation of the blogging world, which is to ramble on for a while & call my rambling a blog post.

Yes, this blog post will be as just about as useful as a new release of Microsoft Windows, as deep as a Paulo Coelho novel, and as intelligent as... oh nevermind.

I think I hated school because I hated the feeling that I need to 'prepare', that I can't just face the challenge & be done with it without an agonizing period of preparation, plus the ridiculous and stressful idea that this challenge (& hence the preparation period) can ruin my life in some way or another.

I know of course that people shouldn't merely study for the exam... but that is just talk, the way our education is set up.

Back to the point, or its apparent lack-of...

Ok, so it's not apparent!