Furthermore, the global economic downturn has led to a significant increase in the number of disputes in various sectors, and this in turn has provided an impetus behind the need to enhance the procedures applied by the various arbitration centers in the Arab world.

This development is not solely linked to the realities of modern commerce. In fact, the conciliatory approach and the notion of deferring to a neutral and objective personality for a decision, that ultimately underline all forms of ADR, are well steeped in Arabic and Islamic traditions.

There are at least two verses in the Koran that sanction the notion of arbitration and mediation. Furthermore, one of the most famous stories of the Prophet Mohammad’s early life involved him being chosen by feuding tribes, who could not agree on a vital element of the reconstruction of the Ka’aba, to resolve the dispute. The Prophet bridged the gaps between the quarreling parties by suggesting an original solution that was essentially a win-win for all. Other examples of arbitration and mediation abound in Islamic history.

At the outset, let us distinguish between mediation and arbitration. There are a number of differences between those two mechanisms.

Firstly, these methods differ in terms of the role of the appointed third party; in arbitration, an arbitrator is like a judge and his or her decision is final, whereas in mediation, the mediator works to try and bridge the differences between the parties and move them closer a settlement or conciliation. In a sense, mediation is the preferred option when the parties are still attempting to resolve their differences in a way that would allow them to continue their working relationship; whereas, arbitration is usually sought in order to reach a final determination on the overall dispute at the end of the relationship.

Secondly, the authority of an arbitrator is much wider than that of the mediator.

Thirdly, there are differences in terms of time limits, and venue considerations, between the two methods. In essence, arbitration is an attempt to replicate the judicial process but in a manner that is more specialized and streamlined. Mediation is a process whereby the parties agree to nominate a third party who would be tasked with trying to find common ground between the parties and resolve their differences, usually through the organization of meetings which are of a rather informal nature, at least in comparison with arbitration proceedings.

Finally, one of the main advantages of mediation is that it is far less costly than arbitration. In fact, it can be said that the costs of arbitration are its Achilles heel.

***

One of the most significant trends is the adoption of laws that deal specifically with mediation. In Jordan, the Law on Mediation for the Resolution of Civil Disputes was adopted in 2006. The law organizes the process of judicial mediation that takes place at the Court of First Instance. In accordance with Article 3 of the said law, the presiding judge may, upon the agreement of the parties or further to their request, refer the dispute to a mediating judge or a private mediator for the purposes of amicable resolution of the dispute. The mediator is then obliged by law to complete the mediation process within three months of the date on which the dispute was referred to him or her.

A similar development has taken place in the Emirate of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. By virtue of Dubai’s Law No. 16 of 2009, a Mediation Centre was established. The Mediation Centre will be annexed to Dubai’s Courts. The Centre is entrusted to review types of disputes that are defined by its Chairman. Disputes will be reviewed and amicably resolved through a number of experts, under the supervision, of the concerned judge, within a period that would not exceed one month from the date of the attendance of the parties before the judge.

The creation of such centers in Jordan and the UAE, as well as the existence of various mediation mechanisms through international organizations such the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Arbitration Centre, is likely to lead to a surge in the use of mediation as a method for the amicable resolution of disputes. This would be a welcome development, as it would entail the effective resolution of so many disputes in a conciliatory and timely manner, well before the matter escalates to reach a court room or an arbitration panel.

As for arbitration, we have also seen a number of positive trends in this regard in the Arab world. On the one hand, the trend towards the effective adoption of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Arbitration Convention) has solidified. The New York Arbitration Convention mainly enshrines the principle that a properly made arbitration award in one member country must be binding and enforceable in another member country, unless the award can be rejected on the basis of certain grounds for refusal of enforcement, which are narrowly defined in the Convention. The Convention also confirms the principle that if a court is presented with a dispute which the parties had agreed to refer to arbitration, then the court must refer the matter to arbitration upon the request of one of the parties.

Historically, the rate of adoption of the New York Arbitration Convention in the Arab world has been good. Jordan was amongst the first countries to adopt the Convention, which came into effect in 1959. Almost all Arab countries have since joined, with Kuwait joining in 1978, Saudi Arabia in 1994 and, more recently, the United Arab Emirates in 2006.

The challenge is to ensure that the exceptions that would allow a member country to refuse the enforcement of an arbitral award are applied in a strict and narrow manner. Under Article V(2)(b) of the Convention, the enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused if “the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country.” The parameters of what a country regards as “public policy” can be wide. In Saudi Arabia, an arbitration agreement or award is respected provided that it is not contrary to the principles of Shari’a law. Such a limitation falls within the “public policy” exception, but the key lies in the way such an exception is applied.

In the UAE, Articles 235 and 236 of the Civil Procedures Law (Federal Law No. 11 of 1992) confirm the principle that foreign arbitral awards will be enforced in the country, provided a number of conditions are met. These include procedural issues such as the proper notification and representation of the parties before the arbitral tribunal that issues the decision in the foreign country. Also, UAE courts may refuse the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award if it contradicts a previous judgment already issued by a UAE court or if it includes elements that “contradict public policy or morals.”

***

While in the past “public policy” exceptions have been defined in a wide manner that allowed courts to reject a number of foreign arbitration awards in various Arab countries, there is a discernible trend towards limiting the use of this exception, and applying it only in clear cases of contravention of the country’s moral or public policies.

Furthermore, in the recent past, various Arab countries have upgraded their arbitration laws to be in line with international best practices. This is evidenced by the increasing use of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. This model law was drafted by the UNCITRAL with a view to assisting countries that seek to improve their laws in such a way as to ensure the best possible procedures for commercial arbitration.

For example, Egypt adopted Law No. 27 in 1994, the Commercial Arbitration Law, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. This aimed to enhance arbitrations procedures and resolve complications that arose under the provisions that dealt with arbitrations in the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedures and provide a law dedicated to arbitration. Also, in 1994, Bahrain adopted a new international arbitration law (Decree no. 9/1994) that was based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. In 2008, Syria issued an arbitration law that is based on the Model Law as well.

The UAE is also presently considering a new Federal arbitration law and it is widely reported that the new law would be based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Once enacted, the new Federal arbitration Law will replace the existing provisions in the Civil Procedures Law.

Finally, there is no greater proof of the growing popularity and importance of arbitration than the increasing use of existing arbitration centers in the region, and the founding of new centers. The Dubai International Arbitration Center (DIAC), whose rules are UNCITRAL based, has proven to be an excellent success. The number of cases that the DIAC is handling has been growing at a very impressive rate. According to one report, while the number of new cases with the DIAC in 2008 was 100, there had been 180 new cases registered with DIAC by August 2009. The Cairo Regional Center for International Commercial Arbitration, which was established in 1979, continues to be a great success.

Earlier in January, Bahrain announced the launch of Bahrain Chamber of Dispute Resolution, in partnership with the American Arbitration Association. It is reported that the Chamber will operate what is being called an “arbitration free zone.”

***

In conclusion, various Arab countries have engaged in an active process of upgrading their arbitration laws and those dealing with other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Arab arbitration centers are growing in significance, as more parties resort to the use of their services. These important developments can only serve to facilitate the infrastructure supporting international commercial contracts in the Arab world and, in turn, this will have very positive effects on investment and business growth in our region.

The other story in the news on the very same day was the gun attack at the Roman Amphitheatre in Amman, where a deranged Islamist opened fire at the audience of a musical concert. How the two stories are closely connected, I shall reveal after I share with you the totally new kind of emotion that enveloped me as I followed the parade of the liberated men on TV (alongside the coffins of the fallen fighters, inside one of which lay Dalal Mughrabi, whose corpse Ehud Barak personally mutilated in 1978 and invited the cameras to record his primeval act).

As I watched this historic event, I didn’t know how to define the overwhelming jolt of elation that swept my own sun-mutilated corpse. Why did it seem so unusual to belong to a nation that gave birth to a dedicated group of fighters who refused to abandon their captured comrades, I asked myself? Why was I so surprised to feel that way? Indeed, the extraordinary nobility of those who persevered and offered their lives to twist the arms of the captors of their brothers-in-arms was a manifestation of military valor and gallantry in combat that I have not witnessed in recent memory from my own nation folk. Then I realized what this sensation was like

The only people in this region who have always lit a candle of solidarity for their missing sons and daughters were not the Arab countries. Finally, I could feel as privileged as Jews do. For the first time in my life, and although I never wished for it, I felt like an Israeli. Indeed, one of the reasons the Israelis have always conquered their Arab adversaries was because their soldiers go into battle knowing that their leaders and their people shall never rest until they return them to their families, whether living or dead.

And now, this most honorable trait with its noblest values of gratitude to your fighting brethren combined with the solemn vow to leave no man or woman behind, is no longer monopolized by our enemies. The sweltering Aqaba sun became cooler all of a sudden as the refreshing breeze of redeemed dignity penetrated my soul.

But some people want to snatch that pride away from us, using the most ridiculous and shameful of arguments to tarnish the only bright spot of hope across a demoralized and defeated nation. They keep shedding their crocodile tears over the wanton destruction that Israel inflicted upon Lebanon in its aggression two summers ago, and never cease to blame Hizbullah for inviting such a war on that beautiful Mediterranean nation. But how can Hizbullah be responsible if an irrational beast chose to punish all of Lebanon for no justifiable reason? What would the Cypriots have said if Israel decided to bomb Cyprus in July 2006 because there is a substantial Lebanese community living there? Would you imagine having one single Cypriot clown coming out and blaming Hizbullah for such unprovoked attacks by Israel?

Did Britain blast Ireland to smithereens to fight the IRA? Did Spain flatten the Basque country to avenge the actions of ETA? Nevertheless, you have rabid local columnists – the ones who still insist that Israel did not lose the last war despite Israel’s own admission of defeat – who took it upon themselves to advocate the US stance in demonizing anyone connected to the new public enemy no. 1, the evil Persians.

To perform their new dirty role, these agitators must, against all evidence and reason, keep undermining the role of Hizbullah in Lebanon, despite the fact that this Shiite group is allied in an unprecedented manifestation of national unity with the majority of Lebanon’s Christians against a gang of war criminals and warlords who still have not been held to account for their cruel devastation of their entire nation during 15 years of civil war. Hizbullah is implementing a Shiite Iranian agenda in Lebanon, these quasi-journalists would tell you, and not a whimper you would hear from them about the sponsors of the Fateh Al Islam Sunni group that burnt down Nahr Al Bared refugee camp last year (for a full exposé of the parties behind the funding and arming of Shaker Al Ibsi and his followers, read Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s article in the New Yorker magazine, March issue, 2007).

It is no longer acceptable not to speak out with outrage against this nauseating vilification of Iran’s role in our region, for the Wahabist alternative we are asked to swallow is downright horrendous and, frankly speaking, absolutely indigestible. And let me begin here by reminding everyone that I am not a fan of any group that proclaims religious values in its earthly endeavors, whether it be Sunni or Shiite, Judaic or Christian. I have in fact risked myself several times in the past by taking a public stand against the excesses of religious zealotry, and have endured my fair share of defamation in the process.

But in this case, I sense there is something profoundly perverse in the current campaign to denigrate all Shiites as subversive agents of an expansionist Persian empire, as it serves only one divisive purpose obvious for all. The latest blatant exaggerations of this off-beat circus band betrayed its members when one usual suspect wrote recently that moving the exhumed bodies out of Israel in the latest prisoners swap was deplorable in his opinion. This columnist, who shifted in his late life to the extreme right wing ranks, and in order to score a cheap point against Hizbullah, suddenly proclaimed that those buried in Israel, meaning the land occupied in 1948, were in fact laid to rest in “Palestine”, because “Israel never demarcated its borders”, and therefore the dead should have stayed there (although this shifter would never even be heard referring to land occupied in 1967 as Palestine, let alone to now deny Israel’s existence in order to make his sanctimonious argument).

For the shifter who made a career for himself out of his daily Iran-bashing rants to claim that Dalal Mughrabi was dignified in her unmarked Israeli grave is quite astonishing, since he knows too well that Dalal was displayed by the mutilators of dead corpses in a glass coffin at the Judicial Institute of Autopsy for Zionist students to peek at her before she was dumped without ceremony in an anonymous graveyard in what Israel termed the “Enemy Combatant Cemetery”. To pretend now that the fact that her family can finally afford her a proper burial is somehow lamentable, defies all human norms of decency and simply beggars belief.

But let me get back to the imaginary Iranian threat being propagated by the scaremongers in our midst. As I said, I have absolutely no interest or desire to defend the Iranians or what their revolution stands for, but we owe it to ourselves to examine in depth what the ideological counterpart that is being offered on the menu for our children’s future is all about.

If it’s going to be the reinforcement of the Wahabist stranglehold of the Sunni sect of madness that produced the likes of Bin Laden and Zarqawi; if it’s going to be the stream of insanity that wants to ban all aspects of beauty, art and splendor in Islam; if it’s going to be the deformed version of our great religion that prevents women from driving cars and has a grudge against all elements of refined civilization; if it’s going to be the cult of hate and death that declares all Shiites, Christians and Jews as apostates who must be killed; if it’s going to be the same ignorant hordes who have bulldozed and erased every single physical remnant of Islam’s history in Mecca and Medina; and, finally, if it’s going to be the uglification brand of Islam that brainwashes our youth to become cold-blooded murderers by opening fire at a musical concert in downtown Amman on a peaceful summer night, then without a doubt, I salute the glorious brigades of Hizbullah in this battle of ideologies.

To be totally honest, I am not too concerned to take sides in an historic squabble that took place more than fourteen centuries ago, and don’t particularly enjoy the sight of bloody chest-beatings today by those who still can’t get over the outcome of that dispute. But if I am seriously asked today whether I would stand with Mu’awiya or his enemy in that ancient battle, then by all means I solidly stand with the Hashemite household of the Prophet Muhammad, the Shiites of Ali and his sons, as any human being with any sense of justice would.

And today, despite all its shortcomings that I would be the first to denounce, Iran is still a country that at least has a cinema industry competing in Cannes and Venice, and its Tehran Philharmonic Orchestra leaves a lot to be desired in the Sunni dominated world. They not only allow their women to drive, but they have women Ministers and women Members of Parliament, and you would never hear that an Iranian woman would get sentenced to one hundred lashes after she was gang-raped by seven men, or that little school girls would be forced back to their deaths inside a burning school to avoid them exposing their hair in public.

Iran never invaded any Arab country, nor has it facilitated the invasion of an Arab country, and if its only crime is in supporting the first and only Arab party to give Israel its first taste of defeat and humiliation, then I smell a rotten rat in all this dubious war-drumming, Persian-punching extravaganza.

May all our martyrs rest in peace, wherever in God’s earth they may be resting.

Take care, and if you ride, do it safely.

The upheaval in my head was about the human tendency which we all share when in dire times of trouble: to plead for salvation to what is supposed to be an omnipotent force that holds our fate in its hands – without ever questioning the meaning and purpose of this instinctive exercise. Why, the question kept haunting me, do believers need to implore God for an intervention to save an innocent little girl like Madeleine, if they believe that He has the power to do it anyway.

Does a most merciful father need us immortals to beg him to do the right thing? Does He need the Pope to intermediate to end a grief-stricken family’s plight?

This dilemma has no comfortable answer for someone like me who has reached his belief in a Creator through an arduous process of rational thinking and reasoning rather than by indoctrinated fear of torture in hell fire.

That’s why all the other believers with whom I tried to share this philosophical issue were unwilling to come near the question of how far God is involved in our daily lives, and whether He is responsible for the inexplicable incidents of pain and suffering that plague humanity. They were too afraid to confront the eternal taboo of whether our misery and unnecessary anguish are man made or God made.

Personally, I want to convince myself that only an evil criminal intentionally causes misery, such as causing the disappearance a young girl, and then expect her parents to beseech him for mercy, while keeping them hanging for a verdict of life or death. No, in my book, the party responsible for abducting Madeleine McCann is the sick individual who took her away. God has nothing to do with it. If He did, Madeleine would have long been in her parents’ arms. This is the only God that my mind can fathom, and is the only one worth worshipping for that matter.

Nor can God have anything to do with causing – or preventing – the crushing under tons of concrete of the thousands of families in the latest earthquake in China. Only a sick joker, let alone a compassionate supreme being, would look at our planet one morning, and then decide to give the earth a little shake underneath the province of Schezuan so that 70,000 souls would expire in the most excruciating and slow manner.

I can sense that this topic is already too much to handle for the unsuspecting reader, so I will shift to another, hopefully lighter, aspect of this tragedy (as if anything can be light in dealing with a disaster of this magnitude – but here it is anyway). I noticed something else while following the earthquake story, something we are all guilty of, but we do it subconsciously without too much thought.

Average Jordanians tended not to focus too much on the vast human toll of the Chinese earthquake because deep down in the unexplorable alleys of our minds, we think China is a massively overpopulated country whereby a few thousand less inhabitants are not a cause for spectacular mourning this side of the Asian continent. Don’t get me wrong; the key word here is ‘subconsciously’.

I am not saying that when we switched on the news of the Chinese earthquake, as we all did, and flicked away so swiftly to another channel, as we also did, we acted this way because we are heartless and indifferent monsters. Apart from the deceptive numbers game (there are over a billion Chinese people, the logic goes, so they can afford it), it is also this overwhelming media conditioning we are all subjected to that sets our priorities of what is newsworthy for precious airtime and what is mundane and lame stuff.

We are under the spell of organizations who direct us towards what should amount to a grieving moment, such as the loss of a beautiful Princess in a car accident in a Paris tunnel, as opposed to the routine loss of a few hundred lesser people in a train crash outside Bangalore, where we yawn and switch off. Of course we don’t do it because we have a grudge against the Indian people, but it is still worth pondering why and how we manage to behave like that; how we turn away as if nothing has happened when thousands die in a flood in Mexico, and how we get glued to the TV when, say, Madeleine McCann goes missing.

And let us admit, in the rat race that is life today, we are all equally guilty in this inclination to be too apathetic and oblivious to the news that really matters. We developed a lazy conscience and just cannot be bothered to determine for ourselves what warrants our attention and sympathy, so we have subcontracted that task to amoral news merchants who are too happy to pick and select on our behalf.

In the case of China, I may personally be adversely influenced by them being the nation who invented fireworks, something that has always been very close to the heart of the child in me, until, of course, Amman became the world capital for the gratuitous daily use of these explosives, smack in the heart of sleepy, residential neighborhoods. Sarcasm aside, there is something seriously twisted in the law enforcement agencies that permit the uninhibited detonation of these bombs right in the middle of our peaceful backstreets, every single night of the week, while having the audacity to pull me over for not wearing a helmet while riding my motorcycle.

Do I have to wait until one of these missiles lands in my balcony before any Jordanian official visualizes the criminal aspects of allowing Amman to resemble, on a nightly basis, West Beirut in the summer of 1982? I just find it insane to live in a society that does not waste a breath without complaining about sky-rocketing prices, but co-exists happily under the constant barrage of another ludicrously money-wasting form of sky rockets.

But I will not go down (or blow up) without a fight. I shall create my own loud bang and will be heard in my own way: by immediately writing to the Guinness World Records institute and get Jordan a new footprint in history books for being the nation that sets off the biggest number of individual fireworks annually in the world (and while I’m at it, for having more mobile phone shops than any other nation).

And the people of Jordan dare to complain about how expensive life has become? And to top that, the government dares to single out motorcycles and ban them in Jordan?

Speaking of the global inflation phenomenon, it is most ironic that only after just more than a decade since the collapse of communism, the whole capitalist system has not yet had the time to take a triumphant breath and yet is itself on the brink of total collapse. And it is happening all because of the incurable human sin of pure and utter greed.

I’m not talking only about the price of gasoline and diesel here. Analysts studying the financial crisis in the US and Britain have warned that the Great Depression of the 1930’s could be a walk in the park compared to the inferno brewing under the ashes of the world’s financial systems today, and that the recent US housing loans crisis is only the tip of a giant iceberg looming behind the façade of cooked books and sugarcoated profit and loss statements.

But why is capitalism doomed to these endless cycles of booms and recessions? Let’s see what’s taking place with the oil markets as an example of my point.

As OPEC and other oil experts would confirm, there is absolutely no shortage of oil in the world today, despite the surge in demand by our friends the Chinese (a fact that every learned economist and taxi driver would tell you these days to explain away why the whole world is sobbing at the gas pumps). So why are prices continuing to climb as I write, and as the head of Russian Gazprom predicted, would reach US$250 a barrel by the end of the year?

The way this humble observer sees things, the unprecedented surge in oil prices is purely caused by greed and speculation by a bunch of unscrupulous global players who can’t get enough profits to feed their insatiable and extravagant lifestyles. Supply and demand as a price-setting formula has just become a tired magical potion used to justify the unjustifiable when suppliers want to con the demanders. There is absolutely no reason why the supply taps cannot be re-opened to relieve the crisis, except for, again, pure, unadulterated, and crude greed, to borrow an oily adjective.

Back in small and oil-less Jordan, what are we to do? I can assure you that no amount of prayers to the Lord can save us from the unspeakable scenarios of steeper rises in oil prices anymore than it has helped to save poor Madeleine McCann or succeeded in undemolishing a single school in China.

All I can advise is that if we all get on our bikes, as the saying goes, no one will feel the weight of the soaring price tags as these machines are very economical, and all of Jordan would then be, just like me, writing their own happy and totally incoherent motorcycle diaries, under the illuminated skies of our nightly 4th of July celebrations.

Take care, and if you ride, do it safely.

This article was originally published in Jordan’s Living Well magazine.

Each comedian profiled has their own angle on both the entertainment business and the experiences of Muslims in the United States. Maysoon Zayid talks about being a Palestinian-American Muslim woman who doesn’t cover her hair, a virgin, and a disabled person aspiring to become an actress.

Dean Obeidallah shares the story of how he initially stopped using his Arab last name when performing in the aftermath of 9/11, then had a change of heart and a change of direction.

Azhar Usman, who is shown praying in his dressing room at one point, discusses going through a conservative phase before realizing that his path in life ultimately lay elsewhere.

Many viewers will relate to Ahmed Ahmed’s anxiety in regards to air travel, except that in Ahmed Ahmed’s case there is the added “bonus” of traveling while Muslim and enduring extreme suspicion. And Tissa Hami’s account of enduring prejudice both from non-Muslims and Muslims (some of whom have told her that she is “going to hell”) is not exactly a laughing matter.

Yet, staying true to its subject matter, the special manages to be light-hearted as well. The featured jokes could probably make even David Horowitz laugh, or so I’d like to believe.

Prior to the premiere, I was given an opportunity to interview several of the comedians, and here is what we talked about:

Natalia: Can you tell me more about the PBS special?

Dean Obeidallah: The one-hour special is the brainchild of producer Glenn Baker who first approached us almost four years ago with the idea of shooting a documentary about Muslim and Arab-American comedians. The documentary begins with us performing before any of us had appeared on any major US TV networks. However, by the end of the documentary many of us had appeared on Comedy Central, ABC, CNN, NBC and on numerous other TV networks, so viewers get a chance to watch us move up the entertainment ladder.

Maysoon Zayid: I am so blessed to be involved in this project with such extraordinary talent, including my brother from another mother, Dean Obeidallah. Glen and Omar [Naim - the co-director] were invisible. They made it so easy for us. I’m amazed with the end product. Omar is truly genius. It’s funny. And no one gets shot. AND you get to see my Dad. That alone is worth TiVo-ing.

Natalia: What’s it like to be a Muslim American working in the entertainment industry in the year 2008?

Dean Obeidallah: The entertainment industry is very competitive and is a struggle for everyone, regardless of race or religion. [Being] an Arab-American comedian who talks about my heritage in my act, has set me apart from many other typical comedians because I have a point of view that has not been heard from too often in the past. In the last few years, the entertainment industry has increasingly been supportive of our comedy.

Maysoon Zayid: I don’t know. No, just kidding, I do. I find it very difficult not only being a Muslim but a disabled female Muslim who doesn’t fit the stereotype shown by mainstream media of what a Muslim woman should look and sound like. Nearly all of my experience comes from the entertainment side and I found that, once someone takes a chance on casting me, its been a great opportunity for people who know very little about my culture to learn. In those instances I’ve had a wonderful reception from the majority of my colleagues as well as the Muslim community itself. Oh and the Italian Christians love me too.

Natalia: What are your audiences like nowadays, do lots of Muslims come to see your shows? Are there Jews in the audience?

Dean Obeidallah: When I’m not traveling for shows, I’m in NYC performing nightly at the major comedy clubs so the audiences are a cross section of every race and religion. When we do the Middle Eastern themed shows then the audience is probably 60% Middle Eastern. I am fortunate to have supporters of all different backgrounds

Maysoon Zayid: I don’t make it a policy to check what religion my audience members are, so I cant answer that. Because its not really something I think about nor do I care. Religion is personal. It doesn’t matter to me what religion anyone in my audience is.

I do know for a fact however that I’ve had a Mormon in the audience because she happened to be my best friend.

Natalia: This is just a stab in the dark, but, as an American, I get the impression that there is this sense of discomfort between Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans, and I see comedy as something that has the long-term potential to repair this situation. Am I naive to think this way?

Maysoon Zayid: Please don’t use the word “stab” in the same sentence as “Muslim Americans” and “Jewish Americans.”

Dean Obeidallah: I truly believe that comedy can be used to foster understating between Jews, Muslims, Arabs, and [people of] all different backgrounds. In fact, I have toured colleges for four years in a show I co-created called “Stand up for Peace” with Jewish comedian Scott Blakeman. Our shows are generally co-sponsored by Arab, Jewish, and Muslim student groups.

The goal is to bring together people of different backgrounds and religions (especially Arabs/Muslims and Jewish-Americans), to foster understanding through laughter as well as to attract support for a peaceful, negotiated resolution to the Middle East conflict. I can promise you that our show is much more fun than the events featuring speakers on the extreme right who appear on college campuses with the goal of dividing people through their hate-filled rhetoric.

Natalia: “Axis of Evil” was a success in the Middle East . Would you say that this success is indicative of the way that Muslim American comedians are perceived in Muslim majority nations overall?

Dean Obeidallah: I actually didn’t go with the Axis guys for that tour. However, I have performed in the Middle East before on my own and am returning for shows in late May/early June with Ahmed Ahmed and Maz Jobrani.

Comedy does not have geographic barriers. The Internet, TV shows and films have brought the world closer together. I can also tell you that I learned that we have one big thing in common: Jokes about President Bush get big laughs both in the US and in the Middle East!

Maysoon Zayid: Whether you’re part of the Muslim community or not, if you appreciate good comedy, you’re gonna love our shows. I’ve done shows in Beirut, and I’ve done shows in Tennessee, and I can honestly say the audiences I’ve encountered have been equally enthusiastic on both sides of the globe. Masha’allah.

Natalia: I recently interviewed a Muslim American author, Dilara Hafiz, and one of the most interesting things we talked about was her idea that Islam has a great future in the United States, because it can thrive more alongside democracy. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Maysoon Zayid: First of all, I want to give respect to Dilara Hafiz. I think what she did is such a cool idea and I love the fact that she collaborated on it with her own children. That being said, I heartily disagree.

Being Muslim in America, I feel put in jeopardy. Growing up in Cliffside Park, New Jersey I never felt as if I was an “other,” and I definitely was never attacked for my religious beliefs. But, during the George W. Bush Presidency, I, as well as my nieces and nephews, started to feel overwhelmed by the pushing of his distortion of Christianity on our daily lives. I started feeling a lot less comfortable in my own country, because of this.

If, by the grace of God and the Diebold machines, we get a Democrat in office, Islam may have a slim chance of thriving, but if we end up with that dude McCain, I got two words for my fellow Muslims: “Move to Canada”. OK, sorry, that’s three words.

Natalia: Would you like to share more thoughts on this year’s election?

Maysoon Zayid: I am super-proud to say that I am actually going to be ATTENDING the Democratic National Convention, as both a delegate from the great state of New Jersey and a performer with my arab-boy-comic-harem, aka “Axis of Evil” and Dean Obeidallah.

I am so excited for this election because it means no more Dick and Bush (forgive me for not being halal, but those are their names), and I’m thrilled at the prospect of having either Hilary or Barack Obama for president (as long as Hilary shuts it about obliterating Iran).

Ideally I’d like to see them on the same ticket. But more than anything else, I want Bill back! I know he’s itchin’ to get back in the Middle East peace process/ circus. The one other thing I will say, is Michele Obama is frickin’ awesome.

Dean Obeidallah: This election has both inspired and distressed me. I have been inspired by that fact both a woman and an African-American have a realistic chance of being the next President. I am personally supporting Senator Obama, but I am confident that Senator Clinton would still be a far better president that John McCain.

I have been distressed by some people’s use of Barack Obama’s middle name “Hussein” and the word Muslim as a slur in this campaign. I believe strongly that most Americans will reject these attacks – which I view as not anti-Muslim, but as anti-American, since our country was founded on the principles of religious tolerance. Let’s hope that these haters’ voices will be drowned out by the voices of mainstream America.

Natalia: I have to ask, what’s the most ridiculous thing that’s anybody ever said to you in regards to your brand of comedy?

Tissa Hami: “Are you only doing this to get a husband?”

Dean Obeidallah: I have been asked several times: “Are you really Arab?” As if I’m going to make up an ethnic background.

Maysoon Zayid: People call me anti-Semitic all the time which is completely ludicrous, because first and foremost I am a Semite and definitely not self-hating. Also, of you look at my catalog of work I defy anyone to find an anti-Jewish comment. They don’t exist.

A funnier misconception that always shocks me is when people accuse me of pretending to be disabled. All I can think is wow. I must be the best actor ever, because I have never broken character, EVER. I always get a kick out of that one.

Natalia: And what’s the best thing?

Maysoon Zayid: The best comment I’ve ever gotten was when a really well known actress came up to me at the end of my show, and said “I never knew Palestinians had children!”… In that moment, I had introduced humanity to a people who often see Palestinians as being very far from human. So that moment really validated me.

I also absolutely love it when [people with cerebral palsy] come up to me and are like, this is dope. I can totally do whatever it is they were dreaming of, that they didn’t think they could do. That gives me the warm fuzzies except for when I remember that 98% of them wont make it.

Dean Obeidallah: By far the best comment I have heard is from people – and it’s usually from Middle Eastern-Americans and Muslim-Americans – who after a show, or in an email, say: “Thank you for doing the type of comedy that you do.” I like this so much because it means they appreciate that my comedy is not just intended to make people laugh, but also intended to challenge the way we are often defined in mainstream media and present us in a positive, likable, and accurate light. The support of our community has inspired all of us to continue talking about these issues.

Tissa Hami: When a young boy came up to me after a show and said, “You were the best comedian on the show, by far.” He didn’t tell me that I was the best female comedian on the show, or the best ethnic comedian, or the best female ethnic comedian, if you see what I mean. He just saw me as a comedian.

On a related note, check out my interview with “The Axis of Evil” comedians in Dubai. For more, please read the interview with Maysoon Zayid and Tissa Hami at Muslimah Media Watch.

Christ did not only die according to the scriptures. It wasn’t to end there, but “that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures”. His burial and resurrection was itself prophesied by Jesus himself as he took an illustration from Jonah the prophet. (Matthew 12:40) “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Also this again was prophesied in Isaiah 53. “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death”.

The Hebrew Scriptures speak also of his resurrection. There are many scriptures that prophesy this. The best known is from Psalm 16:10 and Peter the Apostle quoted this as he spoke to the Jews on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down.

Someone commented to me once that the apostles and the evangelists who wrote the gospels were not, for the most part, prophets. Yes, God spoke to us through prophets all down the ages, but what is equally important are “WITNESSES”. The New Testament emphasises this all of the time.

The prophets have spoken, the prophesied events have taken place, and there were those who saw it, witnesses. For instance Jesus himself as he spoke to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:46-47) “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.”

Now, Hebrew Law demanded that everything must be established by two or three witnesses. That isn’t talking about forensic evidence or people who “think” they saw something, but those who were present at the time. We are told that not only two or three witnesses saw Christ alive, but over 500 at one time, which is what is important to Christians.

The Apostles everywhere are keen to show us that they were there and they saw these things, and different gospels exemplify this.

In recent years discoveries are being made in the archeological world that are confirming the accuracy of these scriptures. Among them of course is the discovery of the so called Dead Sea Scrolls. These were discovered in 1947, and are slowly being translated and pieced together. What is interesting is that before the Dead Sea Scrolls the earliest copies of the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures dated from around 900AD. These Dead Sea Scrolls contain all of the books of the Old Testament, either complete books or fragments. They have been dated to around 200 BC including a complete copy of the book of Isaiah dated between 335 – 107 BC.

When compared with modern copies they were found to be almost identical with one another with just a few grammatical variations and this was so with all the other scriptures found. Another interesting scroll was the book of Daniel. Most of it complete. Those critical of the book of Daniel thought because of its accuracy in prophesying events, it must have been written no more than 100 to 200 years before Christ. But this discovery means that at that time it was already established in the Jewish Canon of Scripture and this indicates that it was indeed written by Daniel the prophet as itself claims around 500 years before Christ.

The site of the Dead Sea Scrolls was thought to have been formed around 60 -70 years after Christ. So it is evident that when we read the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures that we have in our possession one of the most accurate documents known to Christians. Thus Christians have trusted grounds in believing that “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures”.

Such non-militaristic strategies aimed at decreasing the potential for terrorism are of vital importance and can have enormously positive repercussions: Saudi Arabia is moderating its religious heads with a real hope that the rest of the devout population will follow. These kinds of models must be used in other nations as well in order to reinforce existing counter-terrorism strategies.

Social policies implemented to prevent terrorism from its core provide the only long-term solution to curb its threat. In an article published by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr Andrew Silke, UN adviser and Director of Terrorism Studies at the University of East London, writes: “A remaining critical concern is that the current [UK] legislation is very poor in offering terrorists and their supporters a way out of extremism. There is no system to encourage terrorists to leave.”

Although it is vital that terrorists are stopped and brought to justice, there must also be rewards for their change in behaviour (assuming there is proof that they have denounced their past beliefs and actions).

Dr Silke adds: “Psychology has long known that it is much easier to change behaviour with rewards than with punishment. The UK though shows no sign of introducing a carrot to accompany the many sticks in its legislative approach, and this omission may yet prove costly.” Dr Silke mentions “Penititi Laws”, introduced in Italy in the 1980s, that cut prison sentences and granted early release for rehabilitated terrorists. This helped eradicate terrorism in the country.

By showing a criminal that he can benefit from both denouncing violent fundamentalism and from becoming more socially accepted, we have eliminated his reason to fight. But, meeting a criminal’s violence solely with state punishment only increases the offender’s rage and sense of social alienation, as well as his group’s perceived injustice. The Economist recently published an article on the Prison Entrepreneurship Programme in Texas. It states, “During the past four years PEP has put more than 300 inmates through four months of business classes and study…About 40 graduates already have businesses up and running. The vast majority are employed. Fewer than 5% have reofended.”

These kinds of effective methods can be applied to rehabilitate terrorist suspects as well. It is also essential to implement intelligent and personal methods to defeat terrorism at its very inception. Yehya Birt, a research fellow at the Islamic Foundation in Leicester, argues that the UK must be doing more in this respect as only a fraction of one percent of the annual counter-terrorism budget in 2007 was allocated to support “hearts and minds” strategies.

However, other counter-terrorism procedures are still vital. In August 2006, 8 British terrorists were arrested on their way to blowing up 7 transatlantic flights from London. Although surveillance was crucial in this instance, the problem with relying too heavily on intelligence gathering is that the penetration of terrorist cells is both limited and random at best.

To the UK’s credit, there are signs of progressive counter-terrorism methods that may also improve the efficiency of terrorist cell infiltration. Hassan Butt, a recently reformed ex-British facilitator for terrorist activity, appeared on BBC2’s Newsnight last month. He said that he is working to deradicalise Jihadis in urban areas of Manchester.

In this case, having a reformed terrorist deradicalising extremists is a highly effective tool: Butt has a working knowledge and understanding of Jihadi thought and propaganda, which he eventually denounced (what we want all would-be terrorists to do). There is an underlying risk that anyone charged with a terrorist crime could just claim to be rehabilitated and ask for special treatment. But, as Martin Bright mentioned in The New Statesman on the 3rd of April, UK terrorism laws may be an effective counter-balance to this problem.

Under the Terrorism Act 2006, ‘acts preparatory to terrorism’ is a new UK legal offence that makes it easier to charge suspects and prevent attacks. Bright argues that this is further facilitated by the introduction of ‘threshold charging’, which he says, “allows the police to bring a prosecution on the ‘realistic suspicion’ of terrorist activity, rather than the usual need for the reasonable prospect of conviction” – the latter being a more tenuous charge.

Appropriate and robust terrorism laws must be coupled with societal and individual-based deradicalisation efforts that centre on the reasons behind terrorism. Jihadis reiterate their concern for the suffering of Muslims in places such as Gaza and the West Bank, Iraq and Afghanistan. Further military operations that kill or injure civilians in these areas will only intensify an extremist’s sense of injustice towards Muslims, and create newly hardened Muslims from the moderate majority.

Terrorist organisations themselves use images aired on News channels that show Muslim civilians attacked or threatened by US, Coalition or Israeli troops. Individuals with certain psychological and aptitudinal profiles are more affected by these images and may be susceptible to recruitment by radical groups.

The Observer’s Jason Burke recently published an article about a Saudi programme to rehabilitate Jihadis. He wrote: “According to […] a psychologist working at the centre, many of the prisoners have very poor reasoning capacity and poor communication skills.” Burke also points out that the prisoners manifested emotional problems that were identified in order to alter their effect in a positive manner and diminish extremist thought and behaviour.

Methods that incorporate incentives, re-education and rehabilitation can eventually defeat terrorism and decrease the need for inflammatory militaristic methods. While progressive approaches must be applauded, a global emphasis on deradicalisation must take root and work alongside existing strategies.

Terrorism, in the long-run, cannot be defeated through the use of force alone; this would only add fuel to an already raging fire. Social, psychological and legal methods can eliminate the very cause of terrorism and reduce suffering and violence on a global scale.

I’ve argued that the apostle Paul’s gospel was not his own invention, but that everything he taught was “according to the scriptures”. Everything he taught could be found in the Hebrew prophecies.

The gospel that Paul preached was precisely the same as the other apostles preached. After his conversion he went away into Arabia and had no contact with the other Apostles. When he came back to Jerusalem he discovered that the gospel that he preached was precisely the same as that which the other Apostles were preaching and so he was welcomed into their number. But what was it that Paul preached?

The text tells us: “… how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

The central theme of the gospel is seen in Paul’s words. Remove the foundational truths of the death and resurrection of Christ and the whole fabric of the Christian belief falls.

It says that first of all he died. Jesus’ death occurred exactly as the scriptures had predicted. “They shall look on him whom they pierced”–The quotation is from Zechariah 12:10; direct from the Hebrew. The choice of the words employed both by the prophet and the Evangelist for “piercing” matches exactly what happened to Christ on the cross. The word in Zechariah means to thrust through with spear, javelin, sword, or any such weapon. And where they nailed him to the cross can also be found in Psalm 22 where we read, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” The word there used for pierced is one signifying to bore as with an awl or hammer. In fact if you read the whole of Psalm 22 you will see a vivid description of the crucifixion of Christ, and it can also be seen written in the prophesy of Isaiah in chapter 53.

When the so called Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, there was much of the Hebrew scriptures found there which actually dated to the time of Christ or 100 years before him. There is a complete scroll of Isaiah as well, and when compared to those copies of which we have today, which are dated to around 900 AD they were to be found identical, with just a few grammatical variations. The entire prophesy was entact. So we have, as did the apostle Paul, a reliable source from which to take our teaching of the gospel.

Now, why did Christ die and why do Christians believe in his death?

We are told that there was something special about it. He died “for our sins”. The apostle tells us that Christ’s death was foretold in the Scriptures, that is the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. The canon of the New Testament was not yet made up, so the Christians of those days used the Hebrew Scriptures (most of the early church was Jewish) and some of them being Greek had also the Old Testament Greek version of those scriptures, called the “Septuagint”.

“For our sins”. What does that mean? Well what do the Hebrew scriptures say about it? Look at the prophesy of Isaiah, chapter 53, the same prophesy that Paul would have looked at. Isaiah was known as the evangelical prophet, because much of his prophesy is to do with the coming Messiah, or Christ. The whole of Isaiah 53 speaks of Christ’s sufferings and death. In fact this Messianic scripture begins at chapter 52, but just for shortness we will pick out just a couple of verses (Isaiah 35:4-6): “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

We know it was often used by the early Christians in their preaching as can be seen in the Acts of the apostles (Acts 8:30-35). This scripture and many more were used by the apostle Paul and other early Christians to show that Jesus was indeed the expected messiah. What Paul was saying was that this coming Messiah had already come and that one was Christ. Christ himself also confirmed this to his own disciples after his resurrection, according to Luke’s gospel.

Now, here is one of the messianic sayings of Daniel. Its meaning would not have been understood until after Christ died, which makes it all the more astounding. Here it is, (Daniel 9:25-26) “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Here among other things it speaks of Christs death, “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself…” It also speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem that was to follow many years after that. These scriptures demonstrate that Christ died for his people, that their sins were to be washed away by his death. “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

Christ’s sacrifice is what the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied about. It is like a golden thread that runs through the Scriptures. It disappears for a while under the fabric only to reappear again elsewhere.

Once, the great question that perplexed the righteous Job was “how should man be just with God?” Here was a righteous man, but he could see that no matter what he did he could never be good enough to stand before God. For God dwelt in that light unto which no man could approach. He saw that his sin was a barrier to his fellowship with God. And a Christian is someone who has come to the same conclusion, but he has also seen that Christ and the sacrifice he has accomplished on the cross has broken down that barrier between man and God so that he can now have unbroken fellowship with Him.

This is what the gospel is about. This is the simple pivot point upon which the Christian faith rests.

Now, I am well aware of the fact that prostitution is frowned upon in all major religions, but the wording of this story, and many of the comments following it, struck me as cheap and exploitative. Let’s weep crocodile tears for Sufiah Yousof while enjoying the furtive thrill of seeing a good girl from a Muslim family go bad! What could possibly be wrong with that?

It’s easy to reduce Ms. Yousof to a two-dimensional caricature, but I suspect that her story is as complicated as any story of lived experience. Of course, a nuanced portrayal most likely means that you do not get to make a buck and/or a self-righteous fuss over the matter at hand.

Allowing people to make choices means that, every once in a while, they will do things that go against one’s ideology, perhaps even against one’s spirit. This is why people everywhere (not just in the Muslim world) are so fond of making examples out of women who stray from the fold. Women have long been regarded as property in many societies, and, in many cases, have been taught to regard themselves, their daughters, and sisters as property as well. And who wants “damaged goods”? Right?

In many ways, Sufiah’s story reminds me of the story of Britney Spears, another “good girl” gone “bad.” I am old enough to remember the days when Britney’s much-publicized virginity was the stuff of hotly-traded soundbytes and teasing magazine spreads. We just love to watch those good girls come tumbling off their public pedestals, do we not?

Let me state this loud and clear: a woman’s sexuality is not public property. What she chooses to do with it is between herself and God, if she believes in God, that is.

Using another person’s private life as a chance to score a cheap point about “the loose morals of today” or what have you is, at the very best, cruel.

I do not wish to speculate too much on Sufiah’s upbringing and the reason for her lifestyle choices. She was a prodigy, and such gifts come with all sorts of string attached. Her father was recently arrested on charges of sexual assault, and one has to wonder if assault is something Sufiah has had to endure as well, but ultimately, this is a matter that only she can testify to.

Perhaps she is happy doing what she does. Perhaps she is not. Either way, it is up to her to decide where to go from here.

She does not need to explain herself to the gawkers who have, with predictable relish, piled onto this story. She does not need to explain herself to me or you. No one is entitled to hear her version of events, lest she chooses to disclose them.

Move along now. There’s nothing more to see here.

If anyone could deduce anything from the previous Uglification articles (exposing and denouncing the stranglehold that the treacherous cult of Wahabism has tightened around the neck of Islam today), it is the conclusion that such an organized destructive movement could not have been empowered to hijack one of the world’s greatest religions and cultures – with the unprecedented financial power that this movement wields – except through a conscious conspiracy of collusion by the West to resuscitate and permanently sustain such a sect of madmen by installing them to be the official guardians of this awfully disfigured and intentionally falsified religion.

Those who went further in reading between the lines may have grasped the crucial role the Zionist movement played in justifying the barbarity of Israel, through its powerful grip on the world media, by fortifying the message that the victims of Zionism are nothing more than an irrational breed of suicidal savages who loathe every manifestation of culture, from music and architecture, down to children’s kites. In other words, the obvious fact which I may have shied away from blurting out more openly is the unmistakable existence of the “C” word, the great, but nowadays automatically discredited, conspiracy theory.

Yet, a conspiracy is not always directly implemented and constantly monitored by its creators. The conspiracy I’m talking about here is not as one imagines the word, i.e., a group of evil men sitting down in secret in a dark room to dictate the next move of the Wahabists. No, that would be a little paranoid (although on many occasions when an urgent fatwa was needed, this was exactly what happened, such as the custom-tailored fatwa in 1990 that American forces can be relied upon to wage war against fellow Muslims in Iraq).

In the annals of the ongoing Wahabist conspiracy, the wheels have been set in motion a long time ago. While they may continue to be oiled every now and then as the exigencies of empire require, external intervention can be kept to a clandestine, undetected minimum. Today, the backwardness of this Islamist scourge has assumed a life of its own. I’ll give you a live example.

As I left the house of a friend one night, I tuned in by chance to the BBC Arabic service in my car, and got a jolting reminder of how efficiently executed such Uglification scheme has been, albeit without the need for constant involvement by the conspirators.

The idiot on the radio, your typical ignorant Islamist from Egypt, was parroting the recent announcement dominating the news coming out from Al Azhar clergy these days: that a woman should not become a head of state in a Muslim country. The fascinating aspect of this discussion was not in the actual merits of such an opinion, but in the absolute and almost surreal irrelevance of the whole bloody discourse.

The question being debated was exactly akin to a heated argument being initiated about whether Egypt should send female astronauts to space, fully knowing that the closest any Arab, let alone a brain-dead Egyptian Islamist, will ever come to conquering space at the current rate is by tuning in to the naked thighs of Nancy Ajram over a TV ‘space’ channel.

Yet, Al Azhar has been making some news lately. In addition to the recent fatwas of breast-feeding at the workplace and legalized prostitutional marriages, the flow of enlightenment emanating from this Wahabist-dominated institution culminated recently in a group of Al Azhar clerics confronting the nation with a most peculiar and highly topical debate: should a woman be allowed to become the head of state of an Islamic country? Without conspirator involvement, left to their own devices, the Islamists proved that they can be relied upon to produce a wealth of pure comic genius. Egyptians in particular have been known to exhibit a unique sense of humor, and this was just another classic joke.

I say this because the closest any Egyptian woman is to ever becoming the President of Egypt these days is for the current President to have a sex-change operation. Yet you have a whole national debate erupting over the proper Islamic ruling over whether such an eventuality is legitimate in the eyes of God. The comedy here is in the concocted distraction from the real issues facing Egypt and the Arab world by indulging in yet more woman-bashing by a group of very disturbed individuals.

Indeed, who on earth decided that the Egyptian people should give one second of their undivided attention to the question of whether to have a woman head of state, when such prospects are as probable today as the Egyptian people reincarnating Tut Ankh Amun to life while having the Sphinx stand up and start tap-dancing? But you can understand why these debates are springing up by digging further.

In the same week that his colleagues went ahead and issued this unprovoked opinion that women should never be presidents (unprovoked in the sense that it was not related to something about to take place in Egypt), the top man at Al Azhar decreed that those who buy newspapers spreading false information about the government shall burn in hell. Aha, now it makes sense. You would have thought that Hillary Clinton was running in the Cairo Primaries, or that Argentina or Germany – or some other country with a woman chief executive – was about to annex Egypt. But there was none of that. There was just a whole lot of journalists being sent to prison for the most trivial of charges, and Al Azhar came to the rescue by posing an absurd question about women presidents while Byzantium was burning.

Such frequent obscenity about breast-feeding from female co-workers and the other gibberish about a woman ruling Egypt is definitely not a result of a fresh conspiracy. Nor for that matter was Ibn Baz’s famous fatwa that the earth is flat with the sun revolving around it, and that no one really landed on the moon. These amusing by-products of Wahabist genius are purely home-made, I believe.

On the other hand, a fatwa ordering Muslims to donate billions of dollars to American banks by refusing to receive the interest due on their huge deposits is not. The latter was a fatwa commissioned directly by the Federal Reserve, because US banks cannot legally refrain from paying interest on deposits, so they do issue the interest and receive it back from these unlikely Muslim benefactors, which the banks then record in their books as donations or unclaimed funds, boosting the US banking sector in most unexpected twists of fortune.

The point I’m making is that a conspiracy is a very convenient business. When you neuter a dog, you pay for just one operation, so that you don’t have to keep restraining the poor animal afterwards. The sterilization is complete by the initial intrusive surgery, and you can rest assured thereafter that the animal will always be shooting blanks. And the Islamists will always entertain us with their sick jokes, because ignorance breeds ignorance by itself, seldom needing outside help.

I must say that the mother of all conspiracy theories is the belief that, since conspiracies are abound in the shaping of every corner of our region, then the conspirators must have exerted every effort to flood the minds of our people with so many other ridiculous conspiracy theories in order to increase the confusion and add to the congestion of fiction with truth and the mixing of fantasy with reality. That way, the real conspiracy gets lost in the mayhem, as conspiracies become discredited before they are even articulated.

For example, if you walk the streets of downtown Amman, or any other Arab capital, the worthless literature being sold on the pavements along with the falafel sandwiches is overwhelmingly dominated by the kind of books that insist that Saddam Hussein and his sons are still alive, along with illustrated versions of the famous hoax of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In a region where reading is a foreign practice and almost an extinct habit, this is what our intellectual capacity and literary output have been reduced to.

In addition to the usual host of the prevalent Wahabist manuals on how to become the quintessential ignoramus in this life and in the one after – disguised for the masses as religious books – you have quite an array of non-illustrated books about the unattainable and forbidden joy of sexual intercourse. With so much garbage floating around, the real conspiracy to keep us feeding on superstitious nonsense gets neatly disguised.

In other words, a conspiracy to conceal a conspiracy, if you like, is underway (this is what happened after 9/11 in the US as all sorts of implausible wild theories were circulated to hide the major and scandalous flaws in the official version of events). But the original plot is too damn obvious in our case. A British army spy in the name of John Philby (father of another famous spy, Kim Philby) did more permanent damage to an entire nation in his desert trips to Wahabist villages in the early 20th century than the Mogul and Crusader armies combined could have inflicted throughout our history.

Indeed, the home-grown mutilation inflicted upon Islam by forcing us and the whole world to accept Wahabist doctrines as the real thing is an irreversible process. Thanks to Philby and his MI6 masters (whose legacy was inherited by the American empire’s long alliance with despotic Islam in the campaign to counter communism), the fundamentalist cancer today is spreading all over the place, even biting the hands of its Western inventors, and there is no cure or end in sight.

A woman called in the BBC show before I arrived near my house. Yes, I was telling this story, if you remember. The caller wiped the floor, as we say in Arabic, with the Egyptian cleric on the radio. But she became part of the plot herself. She got engaged in the tragic game and started defending the capacity of mothers and pregnant women to be effective leaders, overlooking the whole farce of the hilarious context.

I then arrived in my garage, vowing to sit behind my computer and write this article. I know I’m swimming against a sweeping tide – and it is getting near the wee hours of the morning and I have a meeting at 8.30. But I must keep saying these things. I may be a staunch enemy of the conspiracy to deform Islam, but the far more shameful exercise would be to succumb to the greater conspiracy of silence. That’s not an option right now.

Take care, and if you ride, do it safely.

Just for the record, I’m British. I mention that because I recognise that many people nowadays think that Christianity is a Western religion. I had someone say that to me: “Why should you go and preach our Western religion?”

This person was actually surprised when I informed her that Christianity originated in the Middle East. Overall, though, the conversation made me to think. I had to admit that the churches in the West have indeed “westernised” the gospel so much that they have lifted it right out of context, so to speak. So it is a good thing, as we read the New Testament, that we try and put things into a Middle Eastern context.

I would set out, as clearly as I can, what I as a Christian believe. I find inter-faith dialogue to be of great importance. Why do I believe what I believe? Let me tell you.

I call myself a Reformed Believer. I believe the same things the English Reformers believed in the 15th and 16th centuries; they, in turn, believed the same things as those in the early Christian Church. Their aim was to “Reform”, to put right those things they considered to be errors that had grown up within the Church over the centuries.

As a Reform Believer, I am interested in the roots of Christianity. In that light, the portion of scripture which, I think, illustrates in a nutshell the entire Christian faith is to be found in one of the Apostle Paul’s letters to the churches that he himself founded in Asia Minor, the Church at Corinth. All the Apostles were instructed by Christ to “Go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature”. This is how all the early churches were founded, by word of mouth only, and not by force of arms – a method the Church later adopted. They were to begin at Jerusalem and then to go to every corner of the known world, preaching the gospel, and this is something that holds true today. That is why Christianity is a missionary religion.

I know this may be a sticking point for many Muslims, who may judge these early apostles by the egregious behaviour of many modern day missionaries. But please bear with me. I believe that we can only understand something properly if we rid our minds of any pre-conceived ideas we may have. I have always endeavoured to do this with Islam, personally.

So here we go. The verse of scripture I have chosen is taken from the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians chapter 15 and verses 1-4.

(1 Corinthians 15:1-4) “1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures”.

In order to break this study down into manageable portions, I have divided it into 3 short articles and will deal with the text under 4 main headings. (1) The Apostle Paul taught according to the Scriptures. (2) What Paul taught that was according to the Scriptures. (3) What the Scriptures teach about Christ’s death. (4) What the Scriptures say about Christ’s resurrection.

The first thing I’d like to impress upon you is that:

The Apostle Paul taught according to the scriptures. In these few verses he outlines the entire belief of Christians and anyone claiming to be a Christian must believe these things or they cannot be a Christian.

A Christian must believe that (1) Christ died for our sins. (2) that he was buried and (3) That he rose again from the dead. And what makes these articles of faith so demanding of our attention are these words of the Apostle “According to the scriptures”. It is these words which give the whole passage weight and meaning. Why is that? Because it means that the Apostle hasn’t just invented this gospel. But above all it means that he could not possibly have twisted the gospel into a lie. Because the scriptures were all there and open for his readers to see and to check up on him against what those scriptures said. And this is what they did.

Some just rejected it out of hand, just as some do today. But there were also those who tested what Paul said by comparing the Scriptures with his gospel. Just look at this verse in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 17 and verse 11. “… they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Now, I wonder if I may be permitted to digress just a little into the life of the Apostle Paul? Let’s see just what happened to him to make him so fervent in his preaching this gospel that he was even prepared to go through great suffering and persecution for it, and to finally die for his faith.

It happened so we are told in the New Testament on the road to Damascus. Paul was a Jew and we are told he was a Pharisee as well, which is one of the strictest of Jewish sects. His faith was taught him from a very early age. Bear this in mind as we proceed to look at this man Paul.

He was on the Damascus road, probably not long after the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, where he held the coats of those who did the stoning. This probably had a devastating effect, for stoning was not a daily or even a common occurrence in Judea. But after ordaining himself as a kind of chief persecutor of this new Christian faith (it was just called “The Way” in the beginning), he believed men and women who had seemingly left their Jewish faith to join this new “sect” of the Nazareens to be a threat.

Suddenly, on that road, there appeared a blinding light and he fell to the ground and he heard this voice calling to him and saying, “Saul Saul, why persecutest thou me?” He called out, “Who art thou Lord?”. He obviously knew this was the voice of a being so great that he deserved the appellation Lord. And back came the answer, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks [his conscience].” And he, trembling and astonished, said “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?”.

The Lord tells him to go into the city and there it will be told him what he must do. And we are told that he was at Damascus three days without sight (because he had been blinded by the light) and during this time he didn’t eat or drink because the experience was so traumatic. We are told that there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias, who came and laid hands on him and we are told scales fell from his eyes and he regained his site. Ananias was at first reluctant to go to him – “…But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.”

Now I tell you all this to try and demonstrate to you that it took something terrible and traumatic that suddenly changed the life of this man Paul or as he was known then “Saul of Tarsus”. This was no cool, calculating man intent on deception. Something happened to him.

Only God could cause such a change in someone’s life so as to cause that person to dedicate the rest of his life to preaching the gospel and experiencing great suffering and hardship and persecution in the process. There was only one way we could describe his experience and that is he must have been “born again” – “he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Another way that we can tell that the Apostle didn’t just make it all up in order to deceive people is to show that the gospel he preached was exactly the same gospel that all the other apostles preached. Peter the Apostle testifies to this fact in his letter to the churches in Mesopotamia. (2 Peter 3:16) referring to Paul he says “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” So Peter as one of the chief Apostles saw nothing different to what they were teaching.

Would they have done that if he was preaching anything different than they themselves preached? Of course not. This in itself is witness that he was not out to deceive.

I hope to show that not only was Paul consistent with the accepted Christian teaching in the whole of the early church, but that, that which he preached was also consistent with what the Old Testament or Hebrew scriptures said. He was as I have mentioned before a Pharisee before he became a Christian, so he knew those scriptures like the back of his hand. I mean that literally. These Pharisees could tell you the middle letter of the entire scriptures and in those days they didn’t have chapters and numbered verses as we have today. If nothing else they were experts in their own scriptures and the Apostle Paul was no exception:

He says in another place (Philippians 3:4-7) “Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.”

I’ll be exploring the meat of Paul’s teachings and how they relate to the overall workings of my own beliefs very soon. I hope you will join me.