Culture being a residual theory is usually avoided when objectively explaining political issues. Its causal significance is suspect since the behavior of actors is not strictly determined by culture factors, it is complex and intangible, and one can argue that it is both cause and effect being not static. However, recent events demonstrate that one of the main political interests in this century is and would be Religion. According to an article (“In god’s name”) in The Economist published in November 1^st, religion will play a big role in this century’s politics. Religion has power but it is not necessarily a causal power. The key, states Lim, is to avoid treating culture, and specifically religion, as a set of unchanging values, norms, and beliefs that define and shape the social, political, and economic fate of individuals, societies, and countries.

Amazing movie !!

This movie is a must see !!
Like all movies in the US, it has good argumentation and if you argue well you can never be wrong as it was stated in the movie "thank you for smoking", a must-see too !
However, I think there is something true in it.

It is a non-profit internet broadcasted movie, so everyone can watch it on Google Video ...

ZEITGEIST : www.zeitgeistmovie.com

The first part discusses religions comparing different ones in order to diminish their strong ideas ... a strong theory ... but maybe based on spurious historical stories ...

The second and third parts go a way too far ! They presented a global Conspiracy Theory to steel the world's wealth !!?! If there is such a group doing that, they really deserve all the earth's wealth ! "Amazing shit !!" an American would say ...

yet, the movie still deserve to be watched and it is finally enough good ...

...

“Who would believe that we would be dealing with a religious conflict near the end of the 20th century?”

Amazing article from the Economist !!

I think it is the best summary of the current event and the clear link with religions.

In God's name

Nov 1st 2007
From The Economist print edition

Religion will play a big role in this century's politics. John Micklethwait (interviewed here) asks how we should deal with it

AFP

THE four-hour journey through the bush from Kano to Jos in northern Nigeria features many of the staples of African life: checkpoints with greedy soldiers, huge potholes, scrawny children in football shirts drying rice on the road. But it is also a journey along a front-line.

Nigeria, evenly split between Christians and Muslims, is a country where people identify themselves by their religion first and as Nigerians second (see chart 1). Around 20,000 have been killed in God's name since 1990, estimates Shehu Sani, a local chronicler of religious violence. Kano, the centre of the Islamic north, introduced sharia law seven years ago. Many of the Christians who fled ended up in Jos, the capital of Plateau state, where the Christian south begins. The road between the two towns is dotted with competing churches and mosques.

This is one of many religious battlefields in this part of Africa. Evangelical Christians, backed by American collection-plate money, are surging northwards, clashing with Islamic fundamentalists, backed by Saudi petrodollars, surging southwards. And the Christian-Muslim split is only one form of religious competition in northern Nigeria. Events in Iraq have set Sunnis, who make up most of Nigeria's Muslims, against the better-organised Shias; about 50 people have died in intra-Muslim violence, reckons Mr Sani. On the Christian side, Catholics are in a more peaceful battle with Protestant evangelists, whose signs promising immediate redemption dominate the roadside. By the time you reach Jos and see a poster proclaiming “the ABC of nourishment”, you are surprised to discover it is for chocolate.

Recently Christians have been returning to Kano, partly because sharia law (which in any case applies only to Muslims) has been introduced sympathetically. None of the bloodier sentences has been carried out. Indeed, the election in April was settled in a reassuringly secular way—with the local political barons swapping cash and ballot papers in the bungalow of the Prince Hotel.

Yet it would not take much for things to boil over again. The Muslim north resents the Christian south's hogging of Nigeria's oil money. When earlier this year the shadowy “Black Taliban” struck a police station in Kano, around 20 militants were killed. In September Muslim youths set shops on fire after rumours that a Christian teacher in the area had drawn a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad. And the missionaries are still pushing provocatively north. Salihu Garba, a prominent Muslim convert to Christianity (who has survived various assassination attempts), claims that the Evangelical Church of West Africa now has 157 churches in Kano state—double the number five years ago.

The journey from Kano to Jos may seem a trip back in time. In fact, religious front-lines criss-cross the globe.

Most obviously, Americans and Britons would not be dying in Iraq and Afghanistan had 19 young Muslims not attacked the United States in the name of Allah. The West's previous great military interventions were to protect Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo from Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croatians. America's next war could be against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Other conflicts have acquired a new religious edge. In the poisonous war over Palestine, ever more people are claiming God on their side (with some of the most zealous sorts living miles away from the conflict). In Myanmar (Burma) Buddhist monks nearly brought down an evil regime, but in Sri Lanka they have prolonged a bloody conflict with Muslims. If India has an election, a bridge to Sri Lanka supposedly built by the god Ram (and a team of monkeys) may matter as much as a nuclear deal with America.

Formerly communist countries are also getting hooked again on the opium of the people. Russia's secret police, the KGB, hounded religion: its successor, the FSB, has its own Orthodox church opposite its headquarters. In the Polish parliament the speaker crosses himself before taking his seat. Some of China's technocrats think that Confucianism, which Mao condemned as “feudal”, is useful social glue in their fast-changing country. But they brutally repressed a Buddhist sect, the Falun Gong, and they are worried that Christian churchgoers may already outnumber Communist Party members.

In Western politics, too, religion has forced itself back into the public square. The American president begins each day on his knees and each cabinet meeting with a prayer. The easiest way to tell a Republican from a Democrat is to ask how often he or she goes to church. And although European liberals sneer about American theocracy, American conservatives claim that secular, childless Europe is turning into Eurabia.

Many secular intellectuals think that the real “clash of civilisations” is not between different religions but between superstition and modernity. A succession of bestselling books have torn into religion—Sam Harris's “The End of Faith”, Richard Dawkins's “The God Delusion” and Christopher Hitchens's “God is not Great—How Religion Poisons Everything”. This counterattack already shows a religious intensity. Mr Dawkins has set up an organisation to help atheists around the world.

Part of that secular fury, especially in Europe, comes from exasperation. After all, it has been a canon of progressive thought since the Enlightenment that modernity—that heady combination of science, learning and democracy—would kill religion. Plainly, this has not happened. Numbers about religious observance are notoriously untrustworthy, but most of them seem to indicate that any drift towards secularism has been halted, and some show religion to be on the increase. The proportion of people attached to the world's four biggest religions—Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism—rose from 67% in 1900 to 73% in 2005 and may reach 80% by 2050 (see chart 2).

Moreover, from a secularist point of view, the wrong sorts of religion are flourishing, and in the wrong places. In general, it is the tougher versions of religion that are doing best—the sort that claim Adam and Eve met 6,003 years ago. Some of the new converts are from the ranks of the underprivileged (Pentecostalism has spread rapidly in the favelas of Brazil), but many are not. American evangelicals tend to be well-educated and well-off. In India and Turkey religious parties have been driven by the up-and-coming bourgeoisie.

With modernity now religion's friend, an eternal subject has become fashionable. Father Richard John Neuhaus points out that when he founded his Centre for Religion and Society in 1984, there were only four centres of religion and public life in America; now, he thinks, there are more than 200. Religious people are getting more vocal in all sorts of fields, including business. Religion is also cropping up in economics. Niall Ferguson, a Scottish historian, re-examined Max Weber's theory of the Protestant work ethic to explain why Europeans work less than Americans.

The garden of Eden

Philip Jenkins, one of America's best scholars of religion, claims that when historians look back at this century, they will probably see religion as “the prime animating and destructive force in human affairs, guiding attitudes to political liberty and obligation, concepts of nationhood and, of course, conflicts and wars.” If the first seven years are anything to go by, Mr Jenkins may well turn out to be right.

What has changed? The main protagonists are oddly unhelpful in providing explanations. Believers usually produce some version of “you can't repress the truth for ever.” Sociologists point out that outside western Europe most people have always been religious. Peter Berger, the dean of the subject, chides journalists for investigating the religious rule, not the secular exception: “Rather than studying American evangelicals and Islamic mullahs, you should look at Swedes and New England college professors.”

Yet even if underlying piety has not changed that much, religion's role in public life plainly has. Only ten years ago, most academics and politicians would have dismissed Mr Jenkins's claim about religion being central to politics as weird.

After all, for much of the 20th century religion was banished from politics. For most elites, God had been undone by Darwin, dismissed by Marx, deconstructed by Freud. Stalin forcibly ejected Him, but in much of western Europe there was no need for force: religion had been on the slide for centuries. In Britain the “long withdrawing roar” of Anglicanism that Matthew Arnold lamented faded to a distant echo in the 20th century.

In America the number of churchgoers stayed high, but evangelical Christians retreated from politics, embarrassed by the failure of prohibition and the Scopes Monkey trial (in which creationists were mocked). In 1960 Jack Kennedy assured the country that his Catholicism would not pollute his politics. In 1966 Time magazine famously ran a cover asking “Is God dead?”; three years later man reached the moon, metaphorically conquering the heavens.

For modernising post-colonial leaders in the developing world, secularism and progress were indivisible. “The fez”, said Kemal Ataturk, “sat upon our heads as a sign of ignorance and fanaticism.” In India Jawaharlal Nehru wished to make “a clean sweep” of organised religion: “almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation and the preservation of vested interests.” In Egypt Gamal Abdel Nasser, the champion of Arab nationalism, clamped down on the Muslim Brotherhood. Africa's new rulers nationalised the Christian mission schools that had taught them. Even “the Jewish state” deemed religion a distraction: after Israel's founding in 1948 the secular David Ben-Gurion agreed that rabbinical law would prevail in matters such as marriage and divorce partly because he assumed the Orthodox would melt away.

In retrospect, the turning point came long before Osama bin Laden declared his jihad on Jews and Crusaders. For Timothy Shah, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York who is writing a book on secularism, the symbolic turning point was the six-day war of 1967. It marked a crushing defeat for secular pan-Arabism; meanwhile Israel's “miraculous” triumph gave God a stronger voice in its politics, emboldening the settler movement. In the same year a Hindu nationalist party won 9.4% of the vote in India.

By the end of the 1970s this counter-revolution was in full swing. America had elected its first proudly born-again Christian, Jimmy Carter; Jerry Falwell had founded the Moral Majority; Iran had replaced the worldly shah with Ayatollah Khomeini; Zia ul Haq was busy Islamising Pakistan; Buddhism had been formally granted the foremost place in Sri Lanka's constitution; and an anti-communist Pole had become head of the Catholic church.

What caused this shift? Believers inevitably see a populist revolt against the overreach of elitist secularism—be it America's Supreme Court legalising pornography or Indira Gandhi harrying Hindus. From a more secular viewpoint, John Lewis Gaddis, a Yale historian, points out that much religious politics dates back to the 1970s, a time when more worldly “isms” seemed to fail. By then, the Soviet Union's evils had made a mockery of Marxism, and capitalism had also hit some buffers (the oil shocks, hyperinflation). More generally, politicians' ability to solve problems such as crime or unemployment was questioned: faith in government tumbled just about everywhere in the 1970s—and has stayed low since.

But why has religion's power seemed to keep on increasing? The first reason is a series of reactions and counter-reactions. Fundamentalist Islam, for instance, has helped spur radical Judaism and Hinduism, which in turn have reinforced the mullahs' fervour. Hamas owes much to Israel's settlers. Without Falwell, Messrs Hitchens and Dawkins would have smaller royalties.

Second, the latest form of modernity—globalisation—has propelled religion forward. For traditionalists, faith has acted as a barrier against change. For prosperous suburbanites, faith has become something of a lifestyle coach. It is no accident that America's bestselling religious book is called “The Purpose Driven Life”.

A hitch for the Hitch

Whatever the exact cause, two groups of people in particular have struggled to come to terms with this new world. The first is politicians, especially practitioners of foreign policy. Realpolitik does not easily cope with the irrational. For instance, religion does not appear in the index of “Diplomacy”, Henry Kissinger's 900-page masterpiece on statesmanship (a mistake, admits the former secretary of state, who now sees some “depressing similarities” with 17th-century Europe).

Mr Kissinger is not alone. Before September 11th 2001, most “big books” (with the exception of Samuel Huntington's “Clash of Civilisations”) predicted a secular end to history. The Economist was so confident of the Almighty's demise that we published His obituary in our millennium issue. Madeleine Albright recalls a meeting at the State Department about Northern Ireland in the late 1990s when a diplomat asked despairingly: “Who would believe that we would be dealing with a religious conflict near the end of the 20th century?”

September 11th has changed that. A decade ago, a proposal by the CIA to study religion was vetoed as “mere sociology”; that would not happen now. But mistakes are still made. When America went into Iraq, people worried about George Bush's God-directed foreign policy; in fact it would have helped if Donald Rumsfeld et al had understood more about religion—especially the difference between Shias and Sunnis. “Everywhere we look, we have religious problems,” admits one (born-again) member of the Bush team. “And it is not just Islam. There are the Orthodox in Russia, Hindu nationalism in India, Christians in China...the list is long.”

The other group struggling to deal with religion's role in public life are liberals. When religious belief is plainly unreasonable—for instance, when schools teach creationism—it is easy to fight. But in many disputes there are liberal answers on both sides. Those who are embracing religion nowadays are doing so out of choice. Is it liberal to stop a British Airways worker from wearing a crucifix? Whose rights are being infringed when a majority of people on a Turkish bus ask the driver to stop so they can pray?

A schism in Western liberalism that dates back to its two founding revolutions seems to have reopened. In France, where the Catholic church was the sole faith, the revolutionnaires detested God as a crucial part of the ancien régime: politics, they declared, henceforth would be protected from this evil. By contrast, America's Founding Fathers, used to many competing faiths, took a more benign view. They divided church from state not least to protect the former from the latter.

This special report is an attempt to tease out these conflicts. It comes with three health warnings. First, many numbers in religion are dodgy: most churches inflate their support and many governments do not record religion in their censuses (in Nigeria the best source is health records). Second, in a field where many believers claim to know all the answers, it poses mainly questions. And lastly, given the emotion the subject arouses, the chances are that some of what follows will offend you.

Great Ideas ...

When you find something ( Article, book, film, tv program) that knew how to state some ideas ..... there's nothing to say but They are terribly good !!

This week I had this experience two time ...
lets say one small time and one BIG time ...

The first was Monday, and it was an article !!
An article I had printed but didn't have time to read ...
Published by The Economist in November the 1st ...
I will devote a whole post to discuss this one ...
It is about religion and politics ...

The second was yesterday, a whole film this time but just the fist part interested me!
I heard about it from Samsoum (I keep quoting him but I don't like all his posts neither do I read solely his blog)
It's a non-profit internet broadcasted film ..;
It really needs more than one post ..
about a theory of religion, economy, and politics ..
but only the first part interested me ...


...

Islamists should have registred this trend !!!!!!

This post comes on respond ( consolidation) of BigTrapBoy's post written in Tunisian Arabic unable to any translation !!

I thought that all that pictures of miracle received by Bluetooth or other ... are unique and can't be found in other civilizations ... especially the western one ...

BUT here's the Vatican claiming that a bonfire picture in Poland is indeed a miraculous image of John Paul II !

Hopefully, this civilization has more people with an other reasoning !
Bill Maher in his show "Real time" discussed briefly but efficiently the topic.

THE VIDEO :



...

If the Islamic's picture were a patent ... the Moslems would be at least earning money from that !!! In addition, I heard that most of these pictures come from the "ROBE3 EL KHALI" in S.A.!! It should be a great studio there !!

...

Tunisia, land of peace ...

The Island of Djerba, as well as Nabeul and La Goulette, was unique as it gathered many traditions, which knew how to live together in harmony...

National Geographic Video in Djerba

The issue was well shown in the Tunisian Movie : Sif fi hal9 el oued - Eté à La Goulette
In a American-dating-film-like, Ferid Boughdir, the director, filmed a peaceful epoch. This is the modern history of the Country, and it is a great way to visualize the scene because the only way I heard about is through my grand mother's stories ...

Synopsis: A La Goulette, dans la banlieue de Tunis, tous les enfants d'Abraham cohabitent dans ... la bonne humeur. Jusqu 'au jour ou Meriem la musulmane , Gigi la juive et Tina la catholique jurent de perdre leur virginité avec un garçon d'une autre religion que la leur…

Translation : In Goulette, in the suburbs of Tunis, all the children of Abraham cohabit in ... good mood. Until the day when Meriem the Moslem , Gigi the Jewish, and Tina the catholic swear to lose their virginity with a boy of another religion that theirs...

A MUST-SEE, especially if you speak Tunisian, and more if you grow up in a city that used to have a blend of religious communities ...

...

Tout ça c'est dépassé - Khaliouna netnaffsou

Bravo pour la chanson, Hoba Hoba Spirit !!
Sans commentaire...

PLAY

Rabbitou lahya wellitou ka trabiw fina
Ntouma elli tgoulou chkoune maghribi ou chkoune lla
Hlaktouna bel hadra meykou 3lina chouiya
Ou beddlou sa3a b sa3a


Wellitou ka tfahmou hta fel moussika
Hadi hram hadi mamnou3 ou hadi hchouma
Hlaktouna baraka meykou 3lina chouiya
Ou beddlou sa3a b sa3a

Ayayaye i was born in casa
Ifriki mya fel mya
Had reggae hta houa
Ayayaye hamdoullah moulana
Had leblade bladna
On ne l'abandonnera pas

Votre spécialité, c'est de falsifier
Trafiquer le passé en nous faisant passer
Pour ce qu'on n'est pas
C'est le moment de dire assez
Tout ça c'est dépassé

Tous les jours vous violez notre identité
Tous les jours il faut avoir à se justifier
Vous nous agressez
C'est le moment de dire assez
Tout ça c'est dépassé

Ayayaye i was born in casa
Ifriki mya fel mya
Had reggae hta houa
Ayayaye hamdoullah moulana
Had leblade bladna
On ne l'abandonnera pas

Fkoulchi katdekhlou
Ma nsittou ouallou
Fin ngalssou ach naklou kifach nlebssou
Khalliouna naichou
Khalliouna ntneffsou

Fkoulchi katdekhlou
Ma nsittou ouallou
Fin ngalssou ach naklou kifach nlebssou
Khalliouna naichou
Khalliouna ntneffsou

Ayayaye i was born in casa
Ifriki mya fel mya
Had reggae hta houa
Ayayaye hamdoullah moulana
Had leblade bladna
On ne l'abandonnera pas


...

Philosophic point of view about the truth in religions

First we need to get the real essence of the religion as a fundamental concept in philosophy.
From Wikipedia, trying to have the most objective definition, we can quote :

A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

And here's my thoughts :

Religions could be considered as a mathematic possibility since it could be a system of proper fit elements related with logical link ... or exactly an Axiom. Hence, truth is judged among the coherence of the mathematically logical links between statements.
This theory could mean tolerance among religions as it allows the multiplicity of truths under the simple condition of being coherent in their system.
So, the religion is the equivalent of the mathematic theory
the fundamental texts are the axioms
the other laws are simply derived from this axioms by logic
the prophet (who bring the texts) should be the founder of the theory

Let's compare now a mathematic theory (a Non-euclidean geometry) and a religion (Rastafarian) :

	Elliptic geometry	Rastafarian
Postulates	There are no parallel lines at all unlike Euclid's parallel postul	Haile Selassie I is the black messiah, the living god incarnate
Date of Origin	19th century
Consequences	For example, the sum of the angles of any triangle is always greater than 180°.	Black people are superior to other races

And it is not limited to that ! We can extend this model to any other religion .... and it works ...

...

PS. I am sorry I had to choose Rastafarian because of the peaceful character of its believers!

JIHAD VS MCWORLD

Just beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political futures—both bleak, neither democratic. The first is a retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe—a Jihad in the name of a hun­dred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of ar­tificial social cooperation and civic mutuality. The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food—with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald's, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitantly apart AND coming reluctantly to­gether at the very same moment.
... The article continues here

Why opposing the islamist opponant in Tunisia ?

But blood is assembled to me at my head (Beautiful 3arbi EDDAM TLA3LI LRASSI) when I read that:
“

Recommendations

* The government should cease using antiterrorist laws against peaceful dissenting.
* The state should improve transparency and oversight in the trial and detention system.
* The new laws, institutions, and actions that limit the associational rights and independence of human rights groups and the lawyers' syndicate should Be rescinded.
* The government should guarantee the right of peaceful Islamists to assembles and participate in politics. “

OOOOOOOO33333FFFFF

I think that this point is the grain of dust which blocks all the system!!

I am completely against this recommendation and any political activity for any type of islamist or any other Xiste (with X in [Belief]); and this for the reasons following:

1 - It is the point of view of the opponent Islamics parties to gain the opinion of simple people who are not negligible in number of votes and thus to gain the election without being really qualified;
Example: The Republican in the United States of America (wa ma adrak) are not with the capacity for their super electoral program! <-- It is almost that, yes! I did not stop crossing churches in the United States!

2 - In term of freedom to think or freedom of beliefs, I do not think that these Islamic politicians are the good choice! Even if the content of Islam is very liberal and modern and nice and 3ari9a and saamiya!
Example: Take the example of Iran and their revolution! That could be a better state!!
“Civil Political and liberties in Iran continued to deteriorate in 2005. The ruling clerical Establishment engineered the election of has conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, setting in motion has executive purging of reformers throughout the branch. Meanwhile, tensions between Iran and the West increased substantially due to Tehran' S refusal to suspends its efforts to develop advanced nuclear technologies, suspected to Be leaves of has covert nuclear weapons program.” Source: Freedom House

3 - A state based on the faith of a certain religion or ideology or any other non rational, illlogical or scientifically unconfirmed beliefs are not an example of a state with the chances to develop!
Exemples:
- Adolf Hitler with his powerful international force based on the Nazi ideology that developed well, industrially and militarily ;BUT It did NOT last a long time and deteriorated the brains of thousands of people washed and programmed for killing the different ones;
- The Arab world in the 5th century BUT It did NOT last much more than one century before undergoing the disaster of being locked up on oneself and to forget the developing world; Before the arrival of Napoleon, Arabic still thinking that they were the best people on earth (Khayrou ommatin onzilat lil ardh)

4 - As a Religion: The laws are never stable and it is enough that the interpretation of a fundamental text changes to see the opinion of people changing; It would be there equivalent to the law of the church in Europe of the Average Age but the problem this time it is the following point… ;

5 - Especially concerning Islam: What differs Islam from the other Abrahamic religions it is that it has much less controversies! The fact is that it encourages to use the reason in the decision, require to think scientifically, and, simply, wants the Muslim to be perfect! It is not the last religion by coincidence, it learned from the errors of the preceding ones; It is thus difficult to deny it; One can always find a reason to validate Islam so much it is well organized and using well selected terms, being able to be interpreted in different ways depending on cultures; like any other religion.

…
PS; for the second voter of the survey on Islam !! You won !! You're right !!
Please leave a comment about what you think !
...

CAREFUL changes in Tunisia !!!!

I was reading a very interesting report about this country ...
I liked how they proposed recommendation in each section
(wallahi ya3tihom essa7a ... ca facilite les choses ...
On a plus qu'a suivre les instructions !)

Mais le sang m'est monté à ma tête (Bel 3arbi EDDAM TLA3LI LRASSI) quand j'ai lu cela :
"

Recommendations

• The government should cease using antiterrorist laws against peaceful dissidents.
• The state should improve transparency and oversight in the trial and detention system.
• The new laws, institutions, and actions that limit the associational rights and independence of human rights groups and the lawyers’ syndicate should be rescinded.
• The government should guarantee the right of peaceful Islamists to assemble and participate in politics."

OOOOOOOO33333FFFFF

Je pense que ce point est le grain de poussière qui bloque tout le système !!

Je suis totalement contre cette recommandation et contre toute activité politique pour tout type d'islamiste ou tout autre Xiste (avec X dans [Croyance]); et ce pour les raisons suivante :

1 -c'est le point de vue des opposant islamistes pour gagner l'avis des simples gens qui ne sont pas négligeable en nombre de votes et ainsi gagner le pouvoir sans être vraiment qualifés pour le faire;
Exemple : Les Républicain aux Etats Unis d'Amérique ( wa ma adrak) ne sont pas au pouvoir pour leurs super programme électoral ! <-- c'est ça oui ! J'ai pas arrêté de croiser des églises aux états unis !

2- En terme de liberté de penser ou liberté de croyance, je ne pense pas que ces politiciens islamistes sont le bon choix ! Même si les propos de l'Islam sont très libérales et modernes et gentilles et 3ri9a et saamiya !
Exemple : Regarder Iran et leur révolution ! Ça a pu être un meilleur état !!
"Political and civil liberties in Iran continued to deteriorate in 2005. The ruling clerical establishment engineered the election of a conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, setting in motion a purge of reformers throughout the executive branch. Meanwhile, tensions between Iran and the West increased substantially due to Tehran's refusal to suspend its efforts to develop advanced nuclear technologies, suspected to be part of a covert nuclear weapons program." Source : Freedom House

3- Un état ce basant sur la foi d'une certaine religion ou idéologie ou toute autre croyance non rationnelle, logique ou scientifiquement confirmée n'est pas un exemple d'état ayant les chances de ce développer !
Contre Exemples qui confirment la règle:
- Hitler avec sa puissante force internationale basée sur l'idéologie Nazie à s'est bien développé industriellement et militairement MAIS ce la n'a pas duré longtemps et à couté le cerveaux de millier de gens lavé et programmé pour tué les autres différents
- Le monde Arabe au 5eme siecle MAIS ca n'a pas duré beaucoup plus d'un siecle avant de subir les désastres de s'enfermer sur soi et oublier le monde; Avant l'arrivée de Napoléon les arabes pensait encore qu'ils étaient le meilleur peuple sur terre (Khayrou ommatin onzilat lil ardh)

4- En tant que Religion : Les lois ne sont jamais stables et il suffit que l'interprétation d'un texte fondamental change pour voir l'avis des gens changer; En serait là face à la loi de l'église à l'Europe du Moyen Age mais le problème cette fois c'est le point suivant... ;

5- Spécialement concernant l'Islam : Ce qui diffère l'islam des autres religions abrahamiques c'est qu'il a beaucoup moins de controverses ! La majeur chose c'est qu'il incite à utiliser la raison dans les décision et à faire de la science et tout simplement étre parfait! Ce n'est pas pour rien que c'est la dernière religion, elle a appris des erreurs des précédentes; Il est donc difficile de la nier ou de faire sans elle; On peut toujours trouver une raison valable pour l'islam tellement c'est bien organisé et utilisant des termes bien choisis, pouvant être interprétés de différents façon dans différentes cultures comme tout autre religion.

...

The Saudi Revolution (2789-2799)

This idea came when I was reading a post of Samsoun about the situation of woman in the Saudi Arabia. (Here) This was the main idea of the blog, but it will be more general!

The Big Revolution (2789-2799)

The immediate trigger for the Revolution was Abdullah XXXVI's attempts to solve the government’s worsening Religious situation. In February 2787, his interior minister, Prince Neffa Ben Abdullah Al-Saud, convened an Assembly of Sheikhs, a group of Imams, Mufties and Businessmen selected in order to solve the need of employee in the kingdom. Nawfel asked this group to approve a new law that would, for the first time, include a possible part time job for the totally veiled women. The assembly did not approve the law, instead demanding that Abdullah XXXVI call the Djihad-AlAkbar. On August 8, 2788, the King agreed to convene the random execution of some women so that the activists of them would be afraid.

Almost immediately the "Committee of Secularity", a body of liberal Saudi, began to agitate against voting by order, arguing for an equality of genders and voting democratically (as had already been done in various regional elections, such as in the beginning of the millennium). Nawfel agreed that the number of workers should be doubled, but the question of voting democratically was left for the meeting of the Sheikhs themselves. Fueled by these disputes, resentment between the Wahabist and the liberals began to grow.

By this time, Nawfel had earned the enmity of many members of the Saudi Sheikhs for his support and guidance to the Open Economy. The king, Abdullah XXXVI, his younger son, the Prince Abulkoraz Yasser Abdullah, and other conservative members of the king's private council urged to dismiss Nawfel, wich was fired on July 11th.

Many Saudi presumed the actions to be the start of a royal coup by the conservatives and began open rebellion when they heard the news the next day. They were also afraid that arriving Royal soldiers had been summoned to shut down the National Religious Assembly, which was meeting at Mekka, and the Assembly went into nonstop session to prevent eviction from their meeting place once again. Riadh was soon consumed with riots, anarchy, and widespread looting of the great luxurious Malls. The mobs soon had the support of the Saudi Guards, including arms and trained soldiers, because the royal leadership essentially abandoned the city.

In 2789, the insurgents set their eyes on the large weapons and ammunition cache inside the US military base of Khobar, near the town of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia, which also served as a symbol of tyranny by the monarchy and their traditional allies. After several hours of combat, the base fell that afternoon. Despite ordering a cease fire, which prevented a mutual massacre, many regional government officers were beaten, stabbed and leaved the country.

The King and his military supporters stayed hidden, at least for the time being. Someone took up command of the National Guard at Riadh. Another, became the city's mayor under a new governmental structure known as the Barrakkeka.

Nobles began to flee the country as Illegal Immigrants some of whom began plotting civil war within the kingdom and agitating for a Middle East coalition against Saudi Arabia. By late July, insurrection and the spirit of popular sovereignty spread throughout the Peninsula in 2795-2799. In rural areas, many went beyond this: some burned title-deeds and no small number of great Kings' Buildings as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as the great Nouzouh. In addition, plotting at Riadh and the large numbers of men on the roads of SA as a result of unemployment led to wild rumours and paranoia (particularly in the rural areas) that caused widespread unrest and civil disturbances and contributed to the Big Revolution.

Now, people are afraid of each others and managed to vote for a legalization of the sale of fire weapons. This was made in 2808 and taken part in the rise of the economy of the state!! In 2825, the rate of crimes by armed hand reached the 67% of deaths in Arabia with more than 1100 killed by fire arms per year.

...