Issues with an Imaginary Bully

I have an issue with God for every time I think he is disposable I get convinced that he is crucial to existence. Humans cannot be alone hence they always fill out loneliness with an imaginary friend. No psychologist can undermine the importance of such imaginary friend.

I have an issue with God for he is the manifestation of human weakness. God is only a pool of everything we are not and this is not a coincidence.

Long time ago humans felt that they are " lost in an infinite world" hence they created an infinite God to live at. Instead of living in mystery, humans convinced themselves that they are living in mercy. It is a lot like a hungry person fighting his hunger by repeating " I am full".

I have an issue with God for even believers are not sure he exists. They forbid doubt, asking questions , or disbelief. Would they be as angry if a person had a doubt that they exist?

I have an issue with God for I fail to see beauty. Frankly if the traits I read in holy books existed in a person, I would hate his jealous, racist, and all knowing ass.

I have an issue with God for the idea of him is too simple. It is hard not to imagine a cave man when reading his so called " dictated words".

I have an issue with God but again I might just be jealous :)

Radi Alzayer
28 October 2011
In the plane going to Yanbu.

أضحية لإله ميت

خذ قبلتي

عارياً

اجري بها..ا

بين أحراش مفتونة

بجمالها..ا

واهدي رحيقي

لأغصان

ملّت الندى.. ا

واشتاقت

لفم العابرين

ثمارها..ا

وخبر الليالك

المغرورة

أن ريحها

ذهبت..ا

وأن

نسيم الصبح.. ا

أرهق بتلاتها

فذبلت..ا

ثم أذّن

في أذان الفجر.. ا

للناس.. ا

أن ربهم قُتلَ.. ا

وأن دعاءهم

عبثاً..ا

في أساطير الأولين

كتبَ.. ا

وحج وداعا

لاصنام

ملكت دما

على سوح الخطايا

سكب...ا

خطبة

توتر رتابة لياليهم

وتعلن احتضارك

وان ضمتك

نبضات تعبه.

رضي الزاير.
١٢ اوكتوبر.
ذكرى نيكسون.

I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are murderers.... God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him...'Friedrich Nietzsche. The Gay Science

Talks of Lucid Dreaming

Yesterday, 2nd of august, I had my first lucid dream. A lucid dream happens when you realize in the dream that you are dreaming but the fun part is that you can control your dream afterword. The first thing I did is to try to fly which is something hard even for experts because when you fly you touch nothing that keeps you intact to the dream so most beginners tend to wake up when they try to fly which is what happened to me.

In the second dream I decided, it seems taking decisions in the dream is possible, to take it slow and allow my subconscious to kick in and create the environment, which it did. The environment was my house; the floor was full of presents given by my mom’s visitors for my sister’s wedding. On the floor was my older sister opening presents with her Abaya. I tried to jump the presents but concentrated on keeping a foot on the ground at all times. The rug touching my feet kept me intact to the dream, since I learned that once I feel the bed I get closer to waking up.

I decided to create people instead of places, which is what I did. Before I entered the room I created one of my dear old friends that I miss so much, which was my first conscious creation. In the dream and to make sure that I can create stuff, I wanted it him to be asleep and there he was lying on a chair asleep in the room. I woke him up and we started conversing; I know that everything he said was my subconscious knowledge of him talking. Suddenly I decided to touch him just to make sure he feels real, he turned to a laptop! Then a stupid watsapp message woke me upL.

A person I admire asked some philosophical questions: do the people I created have their own feelings, world, and thoughts that are separated, yet connected, to me. I was playing God’s role in the dream. I knew what my friend would say in the room but my subconscious controlled him, therefore my knowledge of him meant that I completely controlled him.

On the other hand, my subconscious knowledge of him is a biased perception of the real him. It is what I think he would say based on what I stored about him in my subconscious, not 100% what he really is.

I will conclude this article here because I do not want to turn it to philosophy since I am not in a philosophical mode.

Radi alzayer

3^rd of August 2011

Pic from: http://cwnl.tumblr.com/post/6730323522/the-stuff-of-dreams-part-2-lucidity-and-its

رقص وقربان

ألوان الكون تهجره
أخضر
وردي
أصفر
على جسدي
أوهام الذنوب..ي
منجلٌ صدئ
يأبى قيمة الهجر..ي
ما دمتَ في أحلامي
تذوب..ي
خبِّر اللامبالي..ي
أن أطيافاً
يشغلها الرقصَ
على جفوني..ي
وتغذي بالشوق
جنوني..ي
لا تراعي حرمةً
لقلبي..ي
يوم تخفق بالحب
القلوب...ي
****
أشغلتني..ي
رائحةٌ للخوف
في عينيك...ي
ووداعٌ
بطعمٍ
لغيري في شفتيك..ي
قربان دمٍ
يسيل مني إليك
فدوائي..ي
سم زعاف..ي
خياراته..ي
يقتلني أو يبقيك..ي
وروحي
تبحث عن
جسدٍ تحضنه..ي
وكل الأجساد
في هواك.. ي
أو ملك يديك...ي


رضي الزاير
7th of July 2011
pic from:-
http://quirill.deviantart.com/art/Dream-carrier-151988960?q=boost%3Apopular%20dream%20carrier&qo=3

Do we exist?

I read this piece twice before publishing it and I think it is probably the boldest piece of philosophy I ever wrote. The reason is that the ideas in it were not criticized well; I seek your forgiveness, dear reader, for I am currently out of philosophical people around me. Therefore, I transfer the burden of criticism and objection to your logical wit.

If I told you, dear reader, that I exist, what am I telling you about myself? In other words what are the characteristics that are derived from the fact that I exist.

To me existence is all about effect. We say that something “Exists” if it affects us and/or gets affected by us. This definition suggests the relativity of existence and implies that nothing has absolute existence that is independent of personal perception.

For example, unicorns exist in my mind as an idea but it has no physical existence because I didn’t sense it with my physical receptors. On the other hand I exist as a physical entity relative to myself because I can sense my physical existence. However, my absolute existence cannot be proven nor disproven because in absolute terms I could be part of somebody else’s dream, and I do not believe that dreams have any physical existence.

The concept can be applied to God. God as a creator has no physical existence because we cannot sense him with our physical receptors. Moreover, for believers, God has a spiritual existence, which is his effect on believers. Notice that I do not think God exists at the same level to everybody. For example, God does not exist to atheists as a creator but he still exists as an idea.

Notice that everything we think about has a form of existence and the form depends on the way we perceive it. The flying spaghetti monster exists as an idea, and it could exist as a God relative to you if you believed and lived your life according to such. It won’t surprise me if it even heals from illness just like other forms of God. In short, we decide whether things exist physically, as an idea, or as a spirit through our perception and it is all relative to the perceiver.

Radi Alzayer

July 25th, 2011

Picture (wikipedia): In 2005, Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson wrote an open letter about a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as a satirical protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public schools.

Warning: The red pill of truth is poison.

Dreams are often a reflection of reality. Sometimes we have to think deep of the reality the dream resembles. Today I had a weird dream; we were 4 guys living in a weird apartment that has only one room and connected to a small living room with no bathroom. For some reason I was the only one who is not a drug addict among them but I was their only source of drugs.

One of them, happened to be my best friend in the dream, asked me for the best drug in the market. I gave him two pills, a red one and a blue one. I told him choose one, they are both a very good drug but I don’t know which one does what. He took the red one and went crazy, and because I have a job to do somewhere I had to lock him up with the other guys in the room, who wants 3 drugged up guys around?

I came back to find out that my best friend, who got the pill, died of overdose. I only left for a while but it seems the drug was so strong it looked like he has been there, dead, for days. It looked like his mouth and eyes have been bleeding for a while, for blood was dry.
I took him like I expected the result and carried him to the garbage. Something told me that nobody will come asking about him.

Now I am thinking about this dream, and I found out it is very connected to real life. The pills of truth or happiness, the red pill of truth, death, and the fact that nobody asked, they all happened in real life metaphorically. The question remains, why did I know the result in the dream? Was the red pill poison? Did I know subconsciously that I am feeding my best friend poison that would definitely result in the ugly death? Most importantly, am I to blame for his choices (Note that I am not sure what would happen if he had chosen the blue one, I just know it is a drug too)…

Stations and Stories

What Happened in Dubai?

I am in Dubai, and Kant’s understanding of ethics revisited me. He said “If you believe that an action is right if everybody else does it, it is ethical for you” for example if you believe that it is ok for everybody to throw garbage on the street, and you accept the repercussion, it is ethical for you.

This definition was appealing to me but then I visited a broker’s home in Dubai. I have seen his car, his house, his booze, and the restaurants, bars and night clubs he goes to. I was worried that I didn’t see in myself any glimpse of wanting to be him. Even though I know that his life would be very appealing to any other guy.

Let’s apply Kant’s rule of ethics on “me not wanting the broker’s life”. If everybody was me, we would not reach the level of technology we have now. I cannot accept the repercussion of my desire, therefore to me “not wanting the broker’s life” is Not Ethical! From this point I reject Kant’s definition because I think personal desires of life style cannot be unethical.
---

To Chocolate and Espresso

Two weeks ago I went with a good friend to a chocolate place, and Starbucks in khobar’s korniche. I had too much chocolate and coffee in my system. When we started walking on the korniche, I had the feeling that everybody around me was an illusion, people, objects, and myself. I touched a guy with my finger to make sure that he is real, but the feeling did not convince me. I was in an utter state of madness, according to the normal general consensus.

I started asking random people about general philosophical questions like “What is the purpose of life” and I got interesting answers like “ I don’t know” or “ to leave life”. Those answers convinced me more that we might not exist; we might be a creation of some dreamer.

I reached the conclusion that if I can prove my existence I might be able to prove God’s existence with logic rather than mere belief. I discovered that my existence cannot be proven or disprove. I could be a dream in somebody else’ mind, created by his brain just like God might be created by our brain.

I think we live under the illusion of having a solid ground under our feet. I did skydive, I know that after some time of falling, a man lose the sense of going down and it starts to seem normal. Allow yourself to feel the wind playing with your hair while you are falling down… scary, most people would rather believe in the illusion of stability they put themselves into… are they right? Am I right? I don’t know!
---

Transition: fowl thieves, God, and Ethics.

I discovered that current writers steal old philosophers’ ideas without referencing to them. I thought the following thieves were significant before I discovered their misconduct:

1- Nassim Talib: the black Swan.. The whole story of a Christmas turkey not knowing that the everyday food it is provided with will end by a knife was first made up by Hume. The fact that Talib took “Chicken” and put “Turkey” does not make him the inventor.

2- Abdulkareem Surush: in his book “Brain and freedom; العقل والحرية” surush talked about freedom and how freedom will allow only the good idea to survive. This idea was first made up by Hegel.

Philosophy is bringing me closer to God but further from religion.

A prayer for money, cure, driving Satan away from your food, protect you in the bathroom..etc. Those makes sense in the uncertain world we used to live in. Imaging if a lot of people die in the bathroom, wouldn’t you like to know that God is watching over you there because you read the prayer? Is this real comfort or only the illusion of comfort? Do you know? I don’t...

In my opinion they turned God to a grocery keeper. Somebody needs to speak up and reform Islam; otherwise we will face an ethic-less generation soon. I think people will start taking off the religious clothes, as with more education liberalism prevails. The problem strikes when liberalism comes without a notion of ethics.

I fear the generation that believes liberalism means drinking, clubbing, and sex even though the ability to do that is part of liberalism. We need a generation that believes in the liberalism of ideas, and knowledge and produce work out of that liberalism.
---

Tigger, The bouncy tiger

I visited Shaikh Numor Al Numor in Awamia this weekend. The Shaikh is known to be an extreme form of Shia opposition in Saudi Arabia. He is very oriented and very smart, even though the Sunni-Shia divide is engraved in his brain. He sees it everywhere but he did not fight back when I discussed with him that the divide in Saudi is not Sunni-Shia, it is more government-people. The idea of Shia integral tendency to fight opposition is another issue we discussed. He is too smart to believe in the crap people demand to hear from him. The dirt of politics…

Radi Alzayer June 19th 2011
Pic from: http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=chocolate+matrix#/dqfesc

ترنُّح

دبابيس حادة
تتناهش عظمي..ة
آخر القطيع..ة
أعرج
تشفق الأسود
من نهش لحمي..ة
ترافق العمر
لموت بطيء..ة
أوصال تقطعت
من زيف جسمي..ة
ضريحي يصرخ
مابال هذي الجثة..ة
تأبى رحمي..ة
تترنح طمعاً
وشبقاً..ة
وتصرخ كذباً.. ة
بالخلاص..ة
***
أذانٌ..ة
أين ومتى بدأ؟
يزلزل
في علو النخيل
الصدأ..ة
مللت
من ختام القصص..ة
لكفري
طعمٌ آخرٌ..ة
يدفء أديم الأرضِ..ة
لجسدي ِ..ة
مطرك..ة
يخفي تحت رحمته
غرقاً..ة
يبعد الأوراق التي
أخفت شبقاً...ة
وأول زائر للأعماق..سفينتي

رضي الزاير
16th of May 2011
Two friends in one week is it too much?

Pic from: http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&global=1&q=ashintherainbow#/d1xebkf

Poisonous Pills of Absolute Truth

An interesting chain of events led me to visit Al Hasaa last weekend; nothing was on my mind but the idea of absolute ethics when I met an interesting conservative Canadian sitting quietly next to his motorcycle in Starbucks. After we talked about politics, philosophy, and religion for 2 hours he showed us a picture of his Taiwanese “wife”. Then it hit me. The idea of absolute truth came back once I saw the picture of him and his wife standing next to each others.

I will start by saying that the picture shows a lot of signals that his wife is a prostitute. To him the picture shows a loving beautiful and loyal wife, but my eye sees something very different. Two different realities and two “relative” truths. In order to achieve the “absolute” truth between me and him, we need to sit down and discuss the idea. I need to show him what I see “your wife is a bitch” and he needs to show me what he sees” my wife is not a bitch”.

But because there is no way we could discuss this idea, our absolute truth does not exist. Even if we started talking and discussing chances are very slim that any of us would be able to see the other’s point of view. I mean how can he see and understand that his wife might be a prostitute, and how can I understand that his wife is not a prostitute when I saw too many signals of that.

So, the reason why universal absolute truth does not exist is that we fail to understand and see others relative truths. The only way to reach absolute truth is for humanity to sit and discuss ideas openly in order to construct the absolute truth through “dialectic”. Although we are closer to that state now with the limit of technology we reached, I don’t think we will reach that anytime soon because what I like to call “Confined Pockets”.

The discussion of relative truth brought us to the relativity of ethics. My Canadian friend believes that ethics are not relative, i.e. absolute right and wrong exist. He brought an interesting example of the ethical value of “fucking dogs”. He said it is not relatively wrong, it is just wrong. My opinion regarding fucking dogs is clear, if I was in a tribe in Africa where fucking dogs is something of honor and tradition, I will not accept an outsider to tell me that fucking dogs is wrong. So even here I think ethics are relative, but only because I live in a tribe in Africa I am in a “Confined Pocket” or a bubble.

We sometimes think that humanity reached an understanding of absolute ethical behavior. For example, cannibalism, humans eating other humans, is believed to be universally unethical because we talked about, we discussed it, and we reached an “understanding” that it does not serve the “higher human purpose”. But we know that some “Confined Pockets” of cannibals in China and Africa exist so even in such a supposedly trivial matter, we didn’t reach absolute truth yet.

It is obvious that I think the world is gray, no absolute black and white. My Canadian friend said that people try to hide evil behind the fog of grayness. He triggered the question of evil and good in my mind. I do not think absolute evilness and goodness exist but maybe that’s when people turn to be evil. For example, today I may say that absolute evil does not exist so killing millions might not be evil and one day, when I become the absolute dictator, I kill millions and I sleep like a baby at night thinking that it was not a work of evil. The husband of the bitch is right, I might be evil!

I discussed a lot of ideas in the piece but I am going to go further to talk about uncertainty. The Canadian is 42 years old, his opinion about me was “you are still at your 20s, you still think you are superman” and my opinion was “you are too old to accept the level of uncertainty this world has”.

I start to believe that the ultimate goal of all human beings is to reach “happiness” I am not going to define happiness because it is relative. Not only relative but it really depends on how smart the person is. For example, a stupid person might overeat thinking that this is his happiness, he/she overcome the fact that it might lead to diabetes which most probably not his/her happiness. I think we, humans, are generally stupid because we hurt earth, aka overeating, knowing that it might lead to our extinction, aka diabetes.

From this idea of uncertainty I will ask you, my dear reader, to imagine a hole in the ground covered with black fog so that you cannot see what is beneath. Do you think falling in this hole would make you happy or unhappy? See how it is not easy to think “happy” with uncertainty. We want heaven to exist and we want to believe in heaven because we will have to die (aka falling in the hole). Based on this theory I think humans are prone to believe in certain “relative truths” only to reach their ultimate goal, that is happiness. Note that the existence or non-existence of Heaven, God, Justice...etc is irrelative, so absolute truth does not matter for we want to be happy even with illusion.

In short, I discussed how absolute truth does not exist because we fail to combine, discuss, and evaluate our relative truths. Moreover, it might not be in humans’ best interest in their quest to achieve “happiness” to reach any form of absolute truth because relative happiness is more important than absolute truth.

Radi Alzayer
28th of May 2011


Pic from: http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=truth#/disjfv

Ethics and dilemmas

The general theme among people is that they take ethics too simply… living in an idealistic world that can never be accepted by a materialist such as myself.

People, naturally, tend to believe in a universal principles and ethics. Ethics that is right every time wherever you apply them. For example, rape is always unethical. There isn’t an issue when addressing personal ethics since they are, by definition, relative. For example, I think drinking alcohol is unethical (notice the capital ‘I’). However, when we address it on a universal level, how can we judge the ethicality of alcohol, or lack of it thereof?

Some people discussed that the”creator of the world” decides what is universally ethical and what is not. However, the “Creator “changes his mind all the time. For example, alcohol was Okayed by Judaism but banned by Islam. So the unethicality of alcohol is not universal even from the “Creator”.

An argument I heard is that “The majority” decides what is universally ethical. In addressing this issue, most of the world, including the three monotheistic religions, thought slavery is ethical. Now most of the world thinks it isn’t. “ The majority” cannot be taken as an evidence that an idea is true or false for there are other factors that determine what the majority agrees on other than ethical grounds or merely rights and wrongs ( economical in case of slavery).

More importantly, and even on a personal level, I struggle to know what is ethical and what isn’t. I am loosing the sense of wrong and right because of this ethical struggle. I am loosing the answer even in clear matters, to most humans, like slavery, underage sex, killing the innocence, or racism.

On personal level, the question of ethics is very simple but when you are in a position to decide what is allowed in the society and what is not, it is most confusing.

For example, why is slavery wrong? How is it so, principally, different than working with a contract that does not allow you to leave? How is it different than the way we treat our housekeeper (not allowing her to get of the house without constant supervision, taking her passport, and decide for her even what she wears or who to have sex with.)

If I were in a position of power would I be so enthusiastic about illegalizing slavery? Not without calculating the benefits and costs of it. I know that a lot of people in a lot of societies would be willing to sell their children to slavery to eat for a year or two. We banning slavery is like telling them” no it is unethical to sell your children” without addressing the ethicality of hunger. We shouldn’t do that but exactly that is the case.

What is more unethical hunger or slavery? Hunger or prostitution?? I don’t know…

But that raises another ethical question. Is it ethical to let the father decides which of his children to sell to feed the others? Does he have ultimate ownership as to decide the fate of his children for ever through selling them in the market? Better yet is it ethical to sell children to get life luxuries (an iPhone)? How ethical is it to build a factory and employ women and men to conceive babies for sale (is it better for them than hunger)? How ethical is it for society to decide that it is better for THEM to be hungry than to sell babies?

Do you see how even a trivial ethical issue, such as slavery, might not be as trivial and straight forward after all?

Another issue could be race. We think that racism is wrong, or at least a lot of us do. However, should we ignore any research that concludes that some races are dumb, less productive, have lower IQ; even if the research isolate “Race” from other socioeconomic factors ( such researches already exist underground)? Is restricting research ethical only to preserve political correctness? Or to make some people in the world happy by lying to them? (Gender presents a similar ethical dilemma, what if we (males and females) are not equally smart, productive…etc)

I am not sure how society solves these dilemmas, but if you are not obsessed about justice, like me, these ethical dilemmas aren’t hard to solve... However in order to address this question, how to solve these dilemmas, we have to know the Ultimate Social Goal.

It does not seem justice is a goal in most societies, even though there is, always, an “optimum” amount of justice. Reaching the highest level possible of happiness is the aspiration of society and that’s where those issues get addressed. It does not matter where truth is, if most people believe that their happiness is in illegalizing slavery, that’s where society will “head” (not necessarily “reach”, the issue is much more complicated)…

Is the maximum amount of happiness prevents high ethics in some societies (does it prevent society from moving against sex with underage children problem we have in Saudi Arabia)? Why does society prevent making ethical dilemmas as complicated as I am trying to make them? Is it human nature to do so?

Radi Alzayer

16th of May 2011

Thanks Saeed Altufaif for triggering this subject

Photo is from: http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/slavery02.jpg

حريق تحت قمع المطر

حريق تحت قمع المطر
إنها رائحة العفن تنتهي..معلنة أنك أضحيت عظاماً...ولا أزال كالطفل..سعيداً يرقص في غرفة الريح..ولو آلمته أمواس الحلاقة المتطايرة مع أوراق الخريف...ح
--
تعرت كل الأشجار.. خ
فبكاء الربيع..خ
أثقل أوراقها..ن
ولم يبقى إلا
صدء النخيل..خ
يطرد عن عيني
ثقل الشياطين...م
****
حرائق تحت المطر.. أوراق صفراء تعلن الثورة وتنادي بالدفء ملكاً.. وتقمعها حبات المطر وهي تصرخ ببردك ...ح
--
أشعلت حريقاً..ح
في المطر..م
وقبّلتُ جثةً متعفنة..م
على سرير إنعاشها البالي..م
أعالج جثةً
من رشح أصابها..ن
وأطعم بالدعاء.زيف آمالي..خ
يضحكون..خ
ولا أبالي..ن
فهل يملك الجندي
إلا القتالِ؟ م
***
لا تستكن.. إبقى متأهباً.. فتحت أوراق الخريف المبلولة حديث عن الحرية.. ح
--
لا أملك ما أرفع به أعلامي البيضاء..خ
إلا ما تعطيني.. ن
ولا أملك زواد الرحيل..ن
إلا ما تسقيني..ن
لعن الله الفقر الذي..ن
, ألصق أمامك
في الأرض جبيني..ن
أرزقني كفراً..ة
أعالج به إيماني ويقيني..م

Radi Alzayer
14th of May 2011
Dealing with Insomnia and depression... And getting bored of the emotional burden (having it sense 2001)

Pic from : http://s198.photobucket.com/albums/aa235/LEKRAFT/?action=view&current=22cfa951f65c811f.jpg&newest=1

Another tribute to Question Mark

My brain is not capable of generating any answers for my many questions… all answers seem trivial and dumb... It is only when I ask a question; my original question reaches an acceptable satisfaction…

Why do we tend to look for infinite answers? Why do we surround ourselves with lies? Do we not recognize that lies can only give us short term comfort until a guy like Prophet Mohammed disturb everything around us and force us to change?

How many illusions can we surround ourselves with until it gets obvious, even for us, that our world is fragile and unsustainable? How highly can we think of ourselves until we discover that we have been comparing ourselves to a very low average?

Do you think you are Open- Minded, Educated, Ethical and Smart? What did you compare yourself to, in order to reach that conclusion?

If you think you are “Open Minded” and can accept others like they are, how are you going to respond to your 18 years old boy/girl telling you “Mom/Dad, I am gay?” or “ Mom/Dad, I worship the devil now , and I would like raw blood for lunch” ?

If you think you are “Educated”, what are you comparing yourself to? Does our brain compare us to people around us? What if the average around you is not educated, are you far enough from the average? Do we change our environment if we are not comfortable with the average, like moving to a less professional department at work just to feel smarter around the new, lower, average?

Does formal education means you are “Educated”? Especially that the value of information is close to zero given the internet revolution. Do you still think “Educated” means holding a lot of information? Does {“Educated” = “Knowledgeable”} like it used to?

Do you consider yourself Ethical? Would you accept it if we discovered that some races are actually dumber than other races? Is accepting this unethical or open-mindedness? Can you live with such imbalance between the forces that constitute the proud “You”? How do you solve such imbalances? Is ignoring them makes you “Smart”? Would you pay the price of addressing them if the risk is being less “Proud” of yourself?

Can we apply the bell curve on ourselves? Where do you compare yourself in the bell curve below (Smartness, Open-mindedness, Education, Beauty, Ethics, and Contribution to Humanity)? What average do we always choose to compare ourselves to (Colleagues, family, friends…etc)?

Does our brain choose a low average for us ONLY to give us an illusion of comfort? How would you feel if I told you that “YOU” score in the 40% in EVERY ASPECT?

Would you accept the truth if it was: “You will leave this earth without leaving any noticeable impact”? Are you under the illusion that you will leave an impact? How much did you contribute to help your brain to spoon feed you this fantasy?

Be honest to yourself: Is your brain giving you more confidence than you should have? Are you too comfortable with your current status of mind, education, or open-mindedness? Are you living in a delusional world where you are falsely satisfied?

I am out,

Radi Alzayer

7th of May 2011

After an interesting trip to Dubai…

أوراق سريالية

أوراقي ترسم السريالية...ز
قلق الفراشات
يطبق...ز
***
طريقي
ينتهي بمنبع الشمس..ز
على حوافه
جثث بنفسجية الدم..ز
عريها
يفوح منه الغدر..ز
***
طريقي يضيق
لا يصل منحنٍ..ز
إنه الليل..ز
يشق طريقه
للأبدية..ز
والشمس
تحاول التفاعل
مع نفخ الفراشات..ز
ولا تقدر..ز
انطفأت الشمس..ز
انطفأ الكون..ز
عهد جديد
موسيقاه ..ز
صرخاتٌ من الخيمة..ز
ولا يرقص إلا ميمي...ز

رضي الزاير
April 27th 2011
pic from http://eltonfernandes.com/blog/?paged=7

Attribute to ?

“Wise who has a question mark stick to his eyes” ~Radi

I am dazzled because I was never disturbed by Secretes before. I blame it on the Saudi education system, for teaching us so much crap and missing the most important subject on earth, philosophy.

Do they fear philosophy because it brings more questions than answers?

I remember school; all of my teachers were mere teachers, most of them will be forgotten for very few of them managed to move anything inside students. They bear knowledge only and no ability to question it or entice students to question it. They more often than not discouraged legitimate questioning. Is this why we have a dumb generation after a dumber generation in Saudi Arabia and the world?

A question has more power than all the knowledge in the world, because the answer of every good question is another question, and because this series of questions teach us the most important phrase, which is “We know nothing” ~Secretes.

There is nothing dumber than taking ready answers for granted. Nothing dumber than to put superstitions as an answer to any question we fail to answer with certainty.

Why is my mood bad today? Because it is your fate.. Or because your stars aren’t aligned well.. Or because a black cat passed in front of you… why do we accept dumb answers to our simple questions?

Dumb answers are definite. You have no way of refuting or accepting. Everything stops after a dumb answer, especially your mind. The most widely accepted dumb answer is: because God decided so.

Why do we teach ourselves to accept dumb answers? Why are we inclined to call those know-it-alls wise?

Those people always make me want to kill myself. They lecture because they think they know, they think they are so knowledgeable and wise because they are mostly older with a loud voice and a charismatic tone. Why do I not have the courage to tell them stop, you think you know but you don’t know?

Is there anything more dangerous than believing? Believing is to accept an answer as it is true. Believing gives immunity to the idea, and it makes it harder to refute in your mind. Why do we trust to give anything immunity from the almighty question mark? Bold is the superpowering of ideas, why would we make an idea a superpower for it to crush and control our other thoughts?
The truth is the only idea that does not die from the beam of doubt. A person cannot call himself a seeker for the truth before controlling this great weapon, and before having the courage to shoot at every idea.

The question mark is worshipped when questioned… No double standard, for it is a weapon that can be used against itself…

Radi Alzayer
23rd of April 2011

pic is from: http://www.luccazona.com/images/

In Justice I Speak

A talk with a friend about God and belief enticed me to write this topic, hoping that written ideas are clearer than spoken. This topic is Justice, more specifically God’s Justice.

Justice is one of those topics that are taking me away from the idea of a supernatural creator because simply I don’t think that things are as crisp as prophets taught us. Islam is simple when it comes to justice, implement God’s laws and your societies will be intact, crime rates will be very low, and you will go to heaven. In short, you will be happy if you implemented God’s laws in your societies and afterlife. However, this is probably too simple for the real world.

To feed the purpose, let’s examine the origins of crime. Criminals were raised with different values from ours. If I were raised the same way Saddam Hussain was raised, wouldn’t I make the same decisions he made? If not, then there is something hereditary, a Criminal Gene. That means Saddam Hussain had little to change in his behavior, he is the result of his society, aka environment, or Genes after all, and he was not free in his actions. If we learned that this is the case, how would he, Saddam, be sentenced to hell or heaven by God if God chose what takes him to either? Given that God created everything, Genes and Environment, and capable of changing them even if we assumed “God created free well”.

Imagine yourself as a king walking with your servants in a forest. While walking around enjoying the sunlight and quiet breeze you noticed that a hand was hanging on top of a well. Somebody is in danger of falling in the well; he is shouting asking for your help that you know you are capable of doing. Instead you decided that you are going to leave him to the test of helping himself by himself; thinking that if he succeeded you will make him the leader of your military, otherwise he will drown to his fate in the well. The question here is: if he died are you responsible? Let’s assume YOU put him in that situation to experience his strength, would you be responsible for his death?

If I was raised in a house that disrespects women, how can I respect women? If I was raised as a idol worshipper, believing that Hobal or Zeus is the truth and nothing else is, how do you want me to see the truth Mohammed or Jesus are delivering? If I was raised a Muslim, how can I see the light of Jesus Christ? If I was raised a Christian, how can I believe in Mohammed’s message?

If I had little to do with my action, belief, and ethical standards how can God judge me? Isn’t he the one who said in Quran “God orders no impossible “is it possible to be what God wants you to be, when he himself created your environment and therefore your every belief, behavior, and ethical standard?.

I took Saddam Hussain as an example but it is true to substitute him with Hitler, Yazeed, Stalin, Moses’ pharaoh, or any so called “Tyrant”.

I don’t rule out the Criminal Gene, however even this possibility would make hell and heaven unfair because we have no control over our Genes. God created our hereditary characteristics, just like he decided our environment and therefore the values we bear. I lean toward the environment rather than the Criminal Gene; however that means that I, you and everybody else is responsible for all criminals in our society. Because we are the society, furthermore we are the strong cycle in the society because of the education and the ability of critical thinking we wear on our faces. Are we punishing criminals because we don’t want to assume responsibility; because we want to blame somebody for OUR mistakes?

The more I think about this the more I question God’s capability for ultimate Justice… Again, I am either so blind that I can see no light, or so enlightened that I cannot believe a lie, the lie of God’s justice.

Radi Alzayer 4/16/2011

image is from: http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=doubt#/dxtk6q

Why do I think Humans are not humans?

Everything I have been reading recently seems to support one idea and one idea only; we, humans, developed, physically, too fast for our neurobiological bodies. It seems, deep inside us, we are still animals or primitive at best.

The first aspect I have to cover is the fact that we fear with statistical illogic. Just compare fear to the following yearly death tolls in the US extracted from CDC. What do you fear the most, Skydiving or obesity? Bungee jumping or that Sheesha you have been smoking? We are so used to fear our ancient causes of death like wild animals, heights, the sea…etc. Humans fail to recognize that our enemies changed as fast as our technological developments. All of our predators were immediate killers; none of them had the same characteristics of diabetes, cancer or HIV which is eating the body small pieces at a time. Therefore, immediate killers scare us more although killers like diabetes are our main enemy in this era.

There is a clear lag between what we fear and what kills us only because we developed too fast. We have been eating for thousands of years but it is only in this age that we experience this unprecedented abundance of food and fats. (Book: the science of fear) Happiness is the second aspect that proves my point. A study mentioned in “Black Swan, by Nassim Talib” suggested that we, humans, are happier getting a small sum of money every period of time than getting a larger amount of money once as a lump sum. For example, we would be happier getting $200,000 riyals every year for 10 years than getting $5,000,000 as one payment. We are programmed to enjoy the recurrence of $200,000 more than the occurrence of $2,000,000 because for thousands of years our sources of have been food, drink, and sex. Those sources can only be enjoyed a small amount at a time. A person will reach a limit of sexual intercourse or food before his/her enjoyment becomes negative, and he/she will like small amount of food periodically better than all the food at one time. This happens because food does not store value, gets rotten, but money does not have this characteristic which is something our neurobiological programming fails to understand.

The third point I want to talk about is the average attitude in Saudi Arabia in driving and queuing. A lot of civilized-educated people are fed up with human’s attitude here but we have to understand that merely 100 years ago we, generally, were closer to a primitive human than civil. It seems every generation is forming its own subgroup due to the huge and fast change of effective factors. Just note that merely 5 years ago, facebook and twitter did not exist and now they are both very integral in today’s youth.

Technological and infrastructural development in Saudi Arabia happened so fast that we have a struggle between civil and primitive behavior. The Saudi society went through so many tearing forces in the last 100 years, which created many struggling sub-societies. None of those tearing forces affected every part of the society; however the current king’s scholarships combined with the strong emergence of social networks and YouTube is the closest chance we have to turn everything primitive into civil because the effect is more nationalized than ever.

Especially that the new scholarship graduates are not forced to embed in the society like the students from king Khaled’s scholarships in the late 70s because there are so many of them. Just a year after the graduation of the first wave, we noticed that a new sub-society is being formed. The difference between this sub-society and others is that it is more educated than other sub-societies. The struggle did not start, yet, between this sub-society and other sub-societies because of the small number and the apparent insignificance of the new sub-societies. However, it is too soon to say that a struggle, therefore dissolution, would not occur as soon as those sub-societies sense the threat.

Bullets of Freedom

• Freedom of ideas is making ideas compete so the good idea always dominates. Restricting freedom is claiming that the ideas you agree with are true and every other idea cannot be right or useful.


• If you had freedom in religion, the best religion will dominate. If you have it in enterprise the best enterprise will dominate. If they continue to function in a free environment, their domination cannot persist unless they can continuously prove they are the best. It is often easier to fight freedom than to compete to be the best continuously, therefore enterprises lobby to restrict freedom of trade, and religious scholars lobby to restrict freedom of religion, know that this lobbying came out of weakness not out of strength.


• Weakness is fear of the new idea. Fear that the new idea will be viewed as better by people and the current idea will be deserted. If you believe that the current idea, the idea you are holding is the ultimate truth and every other idea is wrong, then you will have the arrogance to restrict people’s freedom to renegotiate, revaluate, and probably refute your idea.


• No prophet restricted this fight and generation of ideas even when they disagreed. For ideas can only be fought by ideas, and idea stagnancy cannot persist for long. Prophets came with not only a belief in the oneness of God but with a belief that this idea is the truth that would last against doubters and evaluators. All prophets encouraged asking questions for they have a strong belief and confidence of their idea, a belief we almost never see these days among their followers


• I am certain that there were more prophets of man than prophets of God throughout history. I am positive that they generated great ideas of God(s) and salvation, but their ideas faded with the light of the sun of God. It is meaningful to ask: who is chosen.. God or prophets? Who chooses who? I lean toward the idea that Prophets chose God not the common belief that it is the other way around. Moreover, I am positive that God does not have the care to choose before being chosen, before he gets approached and asked for help. It is mainly because I think we are viewed by God like we observe bacteria in a lab.


• To fight freedom based on the waste it emits is like rejecting the sun because of skin cancer. It is like ignoring all the benefits we get from the sun and the fact that life cannot persist without it. We can always protect ourselves from skin cancer by blowing up the sun, but what can we do with the consequent hunger, bone problems, and depression. It is with sadness I note that we did blow up the sun in Saudi Arabia, and we are living with the consequences of rejecting freedom. We feared it because they claim we are not ready. It is like you can be ready for the marathon by waiting to get ready rather than training and running. Do you remember learning how to swim or bike? How many times you almost drowned and how many times you had ugly bruises. If you really want it, memories of drowning or ugly bruises would not stop you from trying and trying using the same method of learning by doing.


• Totalitarian governments will always oppose freedom for their main issue is existence even if their end is better for humanity. Freedom is to be able to choose your ruler, your employer, and most importantly your God. It is apparent that a government that bloodily resists being changed is an enemy of freedom, and humanity. It is apparent why those governments do not want freedom, because in the near foreseeable future, freedom means their demise for people will eventually learn that freedom is better and they will seek it with their teeth if they had to. 4th of January 2011

الحركات الإنفصالية في العالم العربي

لا تخفى للمطلع على أوضاع العالم العربي أنه يحفل بالكثير من الحركات الإنفصالية
ففي المغرب تود الصحراء الغربية الإنفصال والجزائر لديها مشاكل مع المبقين على هويتهم الأمازيغية ويودون الإنفصال وليبيا لديها الإنفصال الثقافي بين طرابلس وبنغازي والبنغازيين كانت لديهم دعاوي انفصال قديمة كما قبائل البربر الجنوبية.
الأقباط في مصر أعلنوا قبل فترة رغبتهم بدولة قبطية دينية في مصر منفصلة سياسياً وقضائياً وهي دعوى إنفصال حتى لو لم تكن جغرافية.وفي لبنان كانت هناك دعاوي مسيحية لنشكيل كانتونات مسيحية منفصلة عن الدولة أثناء الحرب الأهلية.
وكلنا نعلم عن السودان واستفتاء الإنفصال الذي تقرر فيه انفصال الجنوب مؤخراً.
وأيضا المشكلة الكردية التي تمتد من سوريا إلى العراق وإيران وتركيا وهم من أقرب الشعوب في هذه المنطقة قرباً لانفصال حقيقي في العراق.
وهناك رغبات تخرج بين حين وآخر للشيعة في شرق السعودية و الحجازيين للإنفصال عن الرياض, واليمن الجنوبي له مطالب إنفصالية وكثير من أهله يعتبرونه محتلاً من الشمال.
وللتوضيح , أنا لست هنا في مجال تقرير شرعية انفصال أي حركة, مع أنني أدعم حق جميع الشعوب في تقرير المصير ,ولكنني في صدد الإجابة على سؤال : لماذا يحفل العالم العربي بمطالب الإنفصال بدرجة أكبر كثيراً من غيره من الدول؟
قد تكون هناك محاور عديدة وأسباب متشابكة للإجابة على هذا السؤال ولكنها كلها في اعتقادي ستصب في بحر واحد وهو عدم شعور المواطن بالإنتماء لوطنه حتى تولدت لديه رغبة في الإنتماء لشيء أكبر مما شجع هذا الطلب. بمعنى آخر طلب الإنفصال هو في معظم الأحيان نابع من حب الإنسان أن ينتمي لوطن وليس خيانة للوطن كما يحاول البعض تصويره.
نلاحظ من مطالب الإنفصال أن معظمها لأقليات في دول لم تسمح للأقليات بالمشاركة الحقيقية في إدارة البلاد مما ولد لدى هذه الأقليات شعور بالإحتلال لذا تكون مطالب الإنفصال هذه دعوى تحرير للوطن من هذا الإحتلال المسلم في مصر ولبنان العربي في كردستان وبلاد البربر والمناطقي في الحجاز و الوهابي في القطيف والأحساء .
ومن المناسب هنا التوضيح أن الشعوب لا تتحرك على وقائع وحقائق بل تتحرك بناء على إعتقادات قد تكون مدفوعة بحقائق وقد لا تكون.على سبيل المثال قد يعتقد الأقباط في مصر بأنهم مظلومون من المسلمين ولكن الحقيقة قد تكون بأن الجميع مظلوم من النظام السياسي وهذا الإحساس لدى الأقباط كان بأنهم لا يملكون الثورة على النظام السياسي ككل و أن لديهم شماعة الأقلية ليعلقوا عليها هذا الظلم وهذا يحركهم لطلب الإنفصال كالطريقة الوحيدة لرفع الظلم عنهم.
أود الإشارة بأن الدول ترتعب من دعوات الإنفصال أكثر من رعبها من الثورات لأن طلب الإنفصال الحقيقي لا يكون إلا مسلحاً وليس هناك شيء إسمه إنفصال سلمي خصوصاً في منطقتنا, وهذا الملاحظ من جميع الحركات الإنفصالية الحقيقية في المنطقة مثل جنوب السودان وكردستان والصحراء الغربية في المغرب ومسيحيي لبنان واليمن الجنوبي.
أثبت التاريخ بأن الطريقة الوحيدة للقضاء على الحركات الإنفصالية عند تشكلها الحقيقي هو بخلق إحساس المواطنة والوطن الكبير عند غطاء الحركة اللوجستي الشعبي وخلق رفض للإنفصال عند الأقليات عن طريق زرع الإنتماء للوطن الكبير بخرطهم في عملية إدارة البلاد. وتحق هنا المقارنة بين حركة إيتا والحركات الإنفصالية السكوتلندية التي قضي عليها عن طريق المواطنة, وكردستان التي رشها الرئيس العراقي السابق صدام حسين بالسلاح الكيميائي وحاول إبادة أهلها ولم يفلح بالقضاء على الحركة الإنفصالية الكردية.
ومما يعقد المسألة أن معظم الأقليات في العالم العربي لها مناطق خاصة. ويرجع سبب تقوقعهم بشكل عام إلى خوفهم الداخلي من خسارة واقعهم الثقافي أو الديني ورفض باقي الدولة لهذا الواقع, ولا تتعدى محاولة بعض الدول لخرط الأقليات عن طريق الدعوة الدينية أو التغيير الثقافي كونها قلة نضج إجتماعي وهي تأجج الشعور الإنفصالي أكثر مما تمحيه عن طريق خلق ال"نحن" و ال"هم" وفي الأغلب تبني المجتمعات حواجز ثقافية ودفاعات جامدة ضد هذه المحاولات مما يذكي التعصب.
ولنا في الشيعة السعوديين والأقباط المصريين خير مثال فقد خلقت محاولات صبغهم دينياً شعباً فخور جدا بمعتقده وروابط صداقة وحب قوية بالخارج فقط بسبب الإنتماء الديني الذي استبدل في هذا الموضع الحاجة الإنسانية بالإنتماء الجغرافي لشيء أكبر. لهذا كان المسيحيين في الولايات المتحدة أقرب للثقافة الأمريكية منها إلى المسيحية وكان الأقباط أقرب للمسيحية عن الثقافة المصرية مع عدم التشكيك في ولاء الأقباط لمصر.
طبعاً لا يجوز ,في الحديث عن الحركات الإنفصالية, إهمال الحديث عن العلمانية الثقافية التي قد تكون أهم من العلمانية الدينية لتحقيق إحساس المواطنة لدى شعوب الوطن الواحد. فالكثير من الحركات الإنفصالية المسلحة والناجحة في العالم العربي أذكتها إنتماءات الدولة الثقافية وليست الدينية كالأكراد والبربر والصحراء المغربية.

أتمنى أن يسامحني القارئ على التأخير في نشر هذا البحث وتراجعي عن الفيديو لتشابك الفكرة وخوفي من عدم وصولها بالشكل المطلوب..
رضي الزاير

رقصة لضوء القمر

رقصة لضوء القمر

عيني.. امتهنت سرقة نهايات الضوء... لتقدمها لله..أعلام استسلام...وفي كل مرة تفتتها دموع الندم عن لوحة بأقواس قزح لا تبالي..

****

اقترب ففي عيني ألوان الكون...

رسَمتُ بها

ساجدين طائفين..

اقترب...

فأنت الله لأنني

أبكي..

وأغني

وأرقص

على أنغام غنائي الحزين..

---

شفتي..لم تعد تخلق ألحان الخريف... فقد تنامت في عقلي إشاعة موتك.. أطلب الدفن ولكن تؤرقني رائحة العفن...

***

إنني أستبق النوم

لأراك..

وأضيع القبور

بدفن الحقيقة..

وكل حبيبٍ سواك..

وإنني أشهق

في وجه الريح

غيرةً

أن تأخذ لغيري هواك..

---

سيفي يستجلب غضباً لا أطيقه... لم يبقى لله نوراً يعكس به ملائكةً تبكيك... ولا طيناً يتصدق للأرض بما بقي منك... ولا زمناً ينسيني ما أهوى فيك...

***

قمر الليلة..

حزين..

يستجلب العواء..

فلم يبقى من جوقة الليل

إلا عازف المزمار..

رحلت كل النساء..

تطاوعه الألحان

شوقاُ

لأنامل الشبق..

وترتجي

لمزامير الرب

السبق..

ليس للسماء

إله

وليس لأزهار الليلك

ذاك العبق..

خنجري يبكيك..

وكم قتل الله

ما خلق...

Radi Alzayer

12th of March 2011

_{picture from:}

_{http://azurylipfe.deviantart.com/art/Moonlight-Sonata-v-47058405?q=boost%3Apopular%20moonlight&qo=69}

في الخلاف السلفي الشيعي

كان محمد,ص, يميل للتحضر عن البداوة وما كان تحميل الله الرسالة لرسول بهذا الميل إلا إعتراف إلهي بأن الدين لابد أن يحمل في ,معظمه, أخلاق الحضارة. ويجب أن لا ننسى حياة الرسول,ص, في صغره مع البدو وأن هذا إعتراف إلهي آخر بأن التعرض للشيء القليل من البداوة مفيد ولكن الكثير منه قد يفسد. وهكذا كان الرسول,ص, في معظم أخلاقه حضري ولكنه يحمل بعض أخلاق البداوة كاحترام العهد والأمانة. وما كانت تسميته الأمين إلا امتداد لهذه الفكرة حيث الأمانة تكون مستغربة, ولو محببة, في البيئة الحضرية التي كانت عليها مكة. ولو كان الرسول,ص, في بيئة بدوية لما سمي بالأمين لأنها ليست صفة مستغربة أو جديدة في البداوة فالجميع يتصف بالأمانة بنسب متقاربة.
المشكلة الأساسية التي واجهت الإسلام في عهد محمد الرسول هو دخول الكثير من البدو في الإسلام وما التوجيه المطمئِن الإلهي للرسول,ص, بقوله في آخر سورة الفتح ( فسبح بحمد ربك واستغفره إنه كان توابا) إلا تعبير عن قلق الرسول,ص, على الإسلام من الأخلاق البدوية الدخيلة. وما كان وجوب الهجرة في بداية عهد الإسلام إلا محاولة لحل هذه المشكلة عن طريق تحضير البدو.
في رأيي يجوز التعبير عن السلفية أنها الإسلام بلسان بدوي كما التشيع ترجمة للإسلام بلسان حضري والصراع بين السلفية والتشيع ما هو إلا امتداد لهذا الصراع القديم ما بين الحضارة والبداوة. وما كان الرسول,ص, ذائباً في أي منهما بل كان حالة وسطية نادرة ما بين بين أخذت محاسن المجتمعين.
تحويل الخلافة لملك عضود يتلاقفه الأبناء والأحفاد هي فكرة حضرية لا تمد للبداوة بصلة حيث ان شيخ القبيلة لا يورث المشيخة لأبنائه توريث حقيقي بل هو توريث بموافقة أعيان القبيلة حيث لا يوجد ملك. ولا نستغرب أن الشيعة كانوا من أوائل المطالبين بتحويلها ملكا يتناقله أنساب النبي وأحفاده خصوصاً أنهم من البداية كانوا ممثلين للحضارة . فلو لاحظنا أعيان الشيعة المشهورين أمثال سلمان الفارسي, وصهيب الرومي, وعمار بن ياسر نرى أن الخلفية الحضرية تغلب عليهم ولا نستغرب أبدا مطالبتهم أن تكون الخلافة ملك عضود في علي وأبناءه. ولا ندري لو كان الحسن في سن تسمح له بتولي الخلافة في ذلك الوقت هل ستكون هناك أصوات تقول بأحقيته على علي لأنه الأقرب نسباً للرسول أم لا.
نلاحظ بأن نجاح تحويل المطالبة لملك عضود ما كانت إلا في الشام في عهد عثمان, ولا ننسى أن الشام قديمة في الحضارة. لاحظ أيضا أن معاوية قام بتحويل عاصمة الخلافة للشام لأنها الأبعد عن الجزيرة العربية, مرتع البداوة في ذلك الوقت. وتلك عبقرية تحسب لمعاوية. وقد تكون تحويل خلافة علي للكوفة لنفس السبب السابق.
لم تنجح تحويل الخلافة لملك إلا بعد 40 سنة من وفاة الرسول حيث توفي معظم من هاجر وبقي أبناء المهاجرين الذين يقتربون لروح الحضارة أكثر من آبائهم المهاجرين. وقد كان هذا التوقيت وذلك المكان الأنسب لإعلان أن معاوية ملك. خصوصاً أنه بدأ في عهد عثمان بتحويل إعتماده على الجيش البدوي لجيش حضري أقرب للنظامية يملك زمام أموره هو نفسه. والفرق بين الجيشين بأن الجندي البدوي يشهر سيفه لأسباب تختلف جذراً عن الأسباب التي يشهر سيفه لأجلها الجندي الحضري المطيع الذي ينفذ أولاً ولايسأل أبداً ولا يغير ولاءاته بالسرعة التي يغير الجندي البدوي ولاءاته.
كان الحسين يخاطب البدوي في الطرف الآخر عندما كان يطلب منهم نصرته وفاءً بوعهودهم التي قطعوها ولكن الحضري فيهم غلب وكان أنهم قتلوه نصرة للملك, يزيد, وخانوا عهودهم معه وهذه فعلة عظيمة عند البدو ولكنها ليست كذلك عند الحضر. ولا نستغرب أنهم حضراً عندما قتلوا بأمر ملكهم يزيد و أنهم شيعة عندما بكوا الحسين بعد أن قتلوه. إنهم تخلوا عن الحسين لأخلاقهم الحضرية ولذلك يقال أن سيوفهم عليه وقلوبهم معه لأن الحضري فيه هذا الصراع ما بين الإيمان والفعل ويقل هذا الإزدواج كلما غرقت المجتمعات في البداوة.
وقد لا يكون الحضر, أو الشيعة, الحاليين على أي اختلاف عن الذين قتلوا الحسين في ذلك الوقت فالإزدواج هي شيمة الحضري في كل زمان. ولكن الإختلاف هو غرق الحضر الحاليين بالحضارة وانحسار البداوة. وفي الوقت الحالي نرى خط واضح أكثر من قبل وانكماش المنطقة الرمادية ما بين الإثنين التي يمثلها في الأغلب البدو حديثي التحضر وأهالي القرى والمدن القريبة من المناطق البدوية.
لقد عبر الدكتور علي الوردي عن الأخلاق الرمادية بأنها تتصف بمساوئ المجتمعين البدوي والحضري, وقد يكون السبب الرئيسي لهذا التعبير أن الدكتور درس البدو الذين لبسوا الحضارة ولم يطلع على الحضر الذين لبسوا بعض لباس البداوة لقلتهم. وقد يكون السبيل لأخذ محاسن الإثنين هو بناء بعض الأخلاق البدوية على أرض حضرية كما حدث مع الرسول محمد,ص.
وأنا أتمنى ألا يقع الكثير في الخطأ الشائع عند الحديث عن الصراع السلفي الشيعي فهو أولاً وآخراً صراع بين البداوة المتمثلة في السلفية والحضارة المتمثلة بالتشيع وهو الصراع البدوي الحضري القديم غطته الظروف بالإعتقادات المذهبية, وليس صراع بين مذهبين متقابلين كما هو شائع. فحتى لو ترك الإثنين الإيمان من الأساس, والعياذ بالله, لن يتوقف المجتمعان عن التصارع نظراً لقيمهم المتنافرة.