Terrorism, 9-11, World Trade Center - Did You Know?

- Did you know that prior to, and following, the September 11, 2001 destruction of the north and south towers of the World Trade Center (along with the 47-storey Building 7 -- some 350 yards away), there has not been one high-rise, steel-framed building anywhere in the world which collapsed due to burning?

---

- Did you know that according to the "official, government" account of the events of September 11, 2001 all three of the foregoing steel-framed buildings had metal pilings which were weakened due to extreme heat and these weakened pilings led to the eventual 'pancake' collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings?

---

- Did you know that both the north and south towers of the World Trade Center were constructed using a set of 47 massive steel columns running around the inner core of these buildings and, in addition, there were 236 steel columns running along the periphery of each of these buildings?

---

- Did you know that Building 7, a 47 storey-building and part of the World Trade tower complex, was constructed with 24 massive steel columns running around the core of the building, together with 57 perimeter steel columns?

---

- Did you know that Building 7, which is some 350 yards from the twin towers, was not struck by an airplane, but it collapsed?

---

- Did you know that the "official" government story is that the diesel fuel stored in Building 7 somehow caught fire and engulfed the building in a raging inferno?

---

- Did you know that according to photographic evidence, the fires which were burning at Building 7 were not substantial and were limited to scattered areas on only a few floors?

---

- Did you know that in the report prepared by FEMA concerning, among other things, the collapse of Building 7, very little credibility was given to the idea that the diesel fuel being stored in Building 7 caught fire and caused the building to collapse, and part of the reason for the low credibility of that hypothesis is no one has advanced a plausible explanation about how the diesel fuel stored in the building caught fire?

---

- Did you know that the 9-11 Commission did not explore the circumstances surrounding the collapse of Building 7?

---

- Did you know that very few of the peripheral steel columns of either of the twin tower buildings were lost due to the impact of the planes and that the building was specifically designed to retain their structural integrity by means of the remaining, intact peripheral and core columns in the event of damage due to commercial airline crashes, hurricanes, and other calamities?

---

- Did you know that steel starts to melt around 2800 degrees Fahrenheit, but hydrocarbon fires arising from, say, burning jet fuel would not reach more than 1700 degrees Fahrenheit ... or 1100 degrees Fahrenheit less than what would have been necessary to melt any one section of the 47/24 core columns or the 236/57 perimeter columns, let alone all 47/24 of the core columns or all 236/57 of the perimeter columns of the three World Trade Center buildings?

---

- Did you know that in order for steel to melt, the steel would have to be exposed to a sustained source of, at least, 2800 degrees Fahrenheit ... brief or very limited exposure to such high temperatures is not enough?

---

- Did you know that some experts who support the government's "official story" concerning the events of 9-11 say that if steel is heated to a temperature of 1300 degrees Fahrenheit, then, the steel will lose 80 percent of its strength? But, did you know that these same experts tend to leave out the fact that one would have to subject such steel to a very, very high source of heat for a considerable period of time in order to heat even one portion of a massive column of steel to 1300 degrees Fahrenheit?

---

- Did you know if one were to heat one section of a steel column that heat transfer would tend to radiate away some of the heat from the section being heated, thereby, making it harder to attain and sustain 1300 degrees Fahrenheit at any given point?

---

- Did you know that in 2004 a fire raged for 17 hours in a 54-story steel-frame building in Caracas, Venezuela and that the intensity of the fire was such that it completely gutted the top 23 stories of the building, and, yet, the building did not collapse?

---

- Did you know that in 1991 a fire burned in a steel-structure building (One Meridian Plaza) in Philadelphia for 18 hours with such intensity that 8 out of 38 stories were gutted and even though many of the building's beams and girders sagged and twisted due to being exposed to the intense heat for such a long period of time, yet, the building did not collapse?

---

- Did you know that less than fifteen minutes after the second of the twin towers was hit, photographs of the towers, as well as the testimony of both firefighters and people temporarily trapped in those buildings, indicate that the fires in the buildings were only scattered and slight, as well as not being even sufficiently hot, in most places, to either melt or break the exterior glass of the buildings?

---

- Did you know that although the south tower of the WTC was hit second, suffered less structural damage than the north tower, and exhibited fewer fires than the north tower, nonetheless, the south tower collapsed first, some 56 minutes after being struck by the airplane?

---

- Did you know that the north tower collapsed 1 hour and 42 minutes after being struck ?

---

- Did you know that tests were carried out in Great Britain during the 1990s in order to investigate the extent of damage which might occur if steel beam structures were enveloped in high-intensity heat (1500 - 1700 degrees Fahrenheit) for many hours (4), and no collapse of the steel beams was observed in any of these experiments?

---

- Did you know that video and photographic evidence indicates that when the south tower started to collapse, the collapse began at a point much lower than the point where the airplane struck the building and much lower than where fires were burning?

---

- Did you know that there was a rumor (started by whom?) circulating in conjunction with the events of 9-11 at the World Trade Center that the fuel from the commercial jets which struck the buildings leaked into the pit formed by the core of the building and started intense fires throughout the twin towers, and, yet, there is not any evidence supporting this rumor or any evidence to indicate how the fuel was ignited on the lower levels or how the fire escaped from the core into the interior of the buildings or what the fire fed on until it could find its way into the offices on the lower levels?

---

- Did you know that even if it were the case that some steel pilings -- whether peripheral or core -- were heated sufficiently so that they lost a substantial portion of their strength and, as a result, buckled, thereby, starting a pancake-domino effect which brought the buildings down, nonetheless, the pancaking would not have been symmetrical (which would require that all 47 core and all 236 peripheral steel columns weakened and buckled at precisely the same time and in precisely the same way) but would have been highly asymmetrical and that this is direct contradiction of the video evidence with respect to the collapse of the two twin towers?

---

- Did you know that there is absolutely no evidence that any of the 47/24 massive core columns in the three WTC buildings that collapsed were subjected to the sort of intense heat for extended periods of time which would have been necessary to weaken those columns?

---

- Did you know that of the 16 perimeter beams from the World Trade Center that were examined, only three showed evidence of having been subjected to temperatures higher than 482 degrees Fahrenheit ( far below the 1300 degrees Farenheit needed to structurally weaken steel provided that the steel is heated for a a sufficiently long enough period at such an elevated temperature) and, in addition, there is absolutely zero evidence that any of the core steel columns were subjected to temperatures even as high as 482 degrees of Fahrenheit?

---

- Did you know that criminal evidence was removed from the World Trade Center complex (and ramming two commercial jets into buildings resulting in substantial lost of life is a criminal offense many times over) when the metal wreckage from the buildings (more than 100 tons of it) was carted away and sold to companies overseas before the evidence could be rigorously analyzed to be able to reconstruct exactly what did cause the WTC buildings to collapse?

---

- Did you know that all three of the World Trade Center buildings which collapsed did so at very close to free-fall rates of speed (i.e., free fall would occur if one were to drop an apple off the top of any of these buildings and there was nothing, but air, resisting the fall of this body)?

---

- Did you know that if the pancake theory of collapse for the three buildings were correct, then, the steel frame and concrete materials below each collapsing floor should have provided resistance to the collapse and, thereby, produced a rate of collapse much slower than what was actually observed and recorded by video with respect to each of the WTC buildings?

---

- Did you know that when tall, many-storied buildings fall at, or very near, to a free-fall rate that this is evidence for concluding that the building collpsed due to "implosion", or controlled demolition, rather than as a result of a random, pancaking effect due to fire-weakened, buckling beams and girders?

---

- Did you know that there are only a few companies in the world with the experience and expertise necessary to collapse tall skyscapers in a controlled way that directs the building to collapse straight down into its own "footprint" -- that is the area circumscribed by the buildings foundation?

---

- Did you know that part of the art and science of implosions or controlled explosions in relation to collapsing skyscrapers is to set the explosive charges so that they go off in a precise sequence that removes the concrete, steel girders and beams from the floor below the one which is collapsing in order that the collapsing floor will meet with neither resistance (and, thus, the free-fall-like signature of imploding skyscrapers) nor anything which would interfere with the symmetrical collapse of each floor (and, thus, the symmetrical collapse into the building's footprint)?

---

- Did you know that the report issued by the NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) put forth a theory -- entirely unsupported by any forensic evidence -- that the destruction of the twin towers came about as collapsing floors tugged on the perimeter columns of each of these buildings, resulting in a structural instability in these peripheral beams that increased the overall gravity load on the core columns, thereby, leading to a 'global' collapse of the buildings?

---

- Did you know that besides lacking any actual evidence to substantiate the NIST theory for building collapse, the NIST theory cannot explain either the quality of near free-speeds of the collapse of the three WTC buildings nor can that theory explain the symmetrical footprint property of all three collapsing WTC buildings -- in fact, the NIST theory would only be consistent with a non-free-fall-like collapse which was very asymmetrical ... neither of which was observed in the collapsing WTC buildings?

---

- Furthermore, did you know that if the government's "officially-adopted pancake theory" were true, then, there very likely would have been massive, largely intact, steel columns -- both core and peripheral -- that still would be standing (albeit, possibly, bent and twisted a little) from the 110 story original structures and that these steel columns would likely extend upward many, many stories into the sky rather than having collapsed into a relatively small, compact, several story-high heap of wreckage?

---

- Did you know that in controlled demolitions of skyscrapers high explosives such as RDX are used in order to slice through the steel beams and girders like a hot knife through butter and, in the process, cut the beams and girders into much smaller manageable lengths of steel that will both take away resistance to the free-fall-like collapse of the building and, as well, help bring the building down in a symmetrical way within a relatively well-defined, compact footprint landing area?

---

- Did you know that the same high explosives which are used to slice up the core and peripheral steel columns of a skyscraper are powerful enough to reduce all non-metallic components of the building (such as poured concrete) into powder?

---

- Did you know that a certain amount of evidence concerning the presence of evaporation as well as sulfidation of steel was found amidst the wreckage of the World Trade Center and that both of these findings are consistent with the idea that there was a detonation of high explosives in the three WTC buildings but inconsistent with a pancake theory driven entirely by the theory that allegedly weakened beams and girders created instability which led, in turn, to a global, gravitational-based collapse of the buildings?

---

- Did you know that the "official" pancake theory adopted by the government would not have reduced the concrete portions of the three WTC buildings to powder but, instead, would have yielded much larger chunks of concrete because the energy generated through the force of gravity of uncontrolled collapsing buildings would not have been sufficient to be able to produce pulverized powder particles?

---

- Did you know that for the most part, evidence indicates that the non-metallic portions of the three WTC buildings which collapsed were pulverized into relatively small particles rather than the much larger chunks of concrete one would expect to find if the "official" story concerning the collapsed buildings were true?

---

- Did you know that there were a large number of independent reports (many from firefighters who were familiar with such phenomena) indicating that people heard a collection of explosions, along with flashes, prior to the collapse of the twin towers -- reports which are consistent with what is known as a "demolition ring" -- that is a series of explosions running around a building during a controlled demolition or implosion?

---

- Did you know that many of the foregoing reports came from an oral history of 9-11 (consisting of some 503 firefighters and medical workers who responded to the World Trade Center tragedies) compiled by the New York City Firefighters (FDNY) which was released to the public on August 12, 2005 but only after a suit was brought, under the Freedom of Information Act, against Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration in 2002 by The New York Times together with a number of the families who lost loved ones on 9-11, and only after the New York Court of Appeals sided with the Times/9-11 families following a three year legal tug of war concerning the public release of the oral histories?

---

- Did you know that on the weekend of September 8th and 9th prior to September 11th, 2001, there was a power down in the south tower of the WTC so that there was no power from floor 50 to the top of the building (over half of the tower) which means that this portion of the building was entirely without surveilance cameras or other forms of electronic security, and for about 35-36 hours there were many 'engineers' and 'technicians' who were going in and out of the building for some sort of 'upgrading' of the tower?

---

- Did you know that in the weeks prior to Septemeber 11, 2001, both of the twin towers were evacuated on a number of occasions?

---

- Did you know that the company which is in charge of security for the World Trade Center is now called Stratesec, but from 1993 until 2000, this company was known as Securacom and Marvin Bush, brother of President Bush, was on the Board of Directors for this company, while from 1999 until 2002, Wirt Walker III, a cousin of President Bush, was the CEO of Statesec, and, yet, none of this appears in the 9--11 Commission's report?

---

- Did you know that the "official story" of the government concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001 was that an entirely random pancake collapse of three skyscrapers took place, producing near-free-fall rates of collapse (meaning a complete lack of resistance from the floors below), as well as a symmetrical footprint (meaning that there was absolutely nothing skewing the fall and preventing the collapse from proceeding straight down -- including the seventy to eighty floors below where the planes crashed that had none of its beams and girders melted or weakened by the heat from alleged, intense fires in these buildings)?

---

- Did you know that the "official story" of the government requires one to believe that on one and the same day, within a matter of hours of one another, and within a few hundred yards of one another, three buildings at the World Trade Center collpased, independently of one another, due to a "perfect" storm of chance factors and collapsed in such a way that, in the entire history of humankind, such results have, heretofore, only been able to be generated by very, very highly skilled and expert technicians in a meticulously planned and precisely controlled fashion?

---

- Did you know there is both video and photographic evidence showing that heavy steel beams were ejected from the collapsing twin towers in a variety of directions -- ranging up to nearly two hundred yards -- and these directions of ejection included both horizonal and upward lines of trajectory ... something that a building which was collapsing in accordance with the pancake theory could not replicate since the only force at work in the pancake theory is gravitation which pulls things downward, and does not push material horizontally outward or in an upward direction for hundreds of feet?

---

- Did you know that the law of conservation for momentum states that a rotating body will continue to rotate at the same speed and with the same direction of rotation unless acted upon by an external torque force, and, yet, although, initially, when the south tower began to collapse, the floors above where the airplane impacted the south tower of the WTC began to move and rotate in a direction toward the hole created by the airplane, nonetheless, subsequently, video evidence shows that, first, the speed and rotation of this portion of the building collapse began to decelerate as well as reverse its direction of rotation (both of which violate the law of conservation of momentum unless one posits a force outside of gravity that caused this), and, then, all of the floors above the point of impact turned into pulverized powder in mid-air, allowing the building to collapse relatively symmetrically into its foundational footprint.

---

- Did you know that both photographic and eyewitness testimony indicate that whatever struck the Pentagon on 9-11, it was not a Boeing 757 (American Airlines Flight 77, which supposedly struck the Pentagon on 9-11, is a Boeing 757) because the size of the hole created in the Pentagon is not big enough to be consistent with being hit by a 757 jet liner and the nature of the debris created by the impact is not consistent with the wreckage of a Boeing 757?

---

- Did you know that within minutes of the Pentagon being hit, video tapes from surveilance cameras positioned on various buildings across the street from the west side of the Pentagon were confiscated by the FBI and with the exception of about 5-6 seconds of totally inconclusive, ambiguous footage, has never been released to the public?

---

- Did you know that the 9-11 Commission did not use its powers of subpoenea to gain access to this video material?

---

- Did you know that unlike the airplane crashes at the World Trade Center towers, the impact at the Pentagon did not produce any significant or noticeable seismic signature, and, yet, supposedly, large commercial airliners were involved in each incident?

---

- Did you know that Hani Hanjour, the al-Qaida member who allegedly piloted the Boeing 757 that supposedly struck the Pentagon, was, according to all evidential accounts a terrible pilot who had difficulty operating even small planes, and, yet, this fledgling pilot was reported to have performed a 270-degree downward spiral while lining up to strike the Pentagon -- something which even seasoned, expert pilots are not likely to be able to accomplish?

---

- Did you know that Flight 77, the Boeing 757 that supposedly hit the Pentagon on 9-11, was, apparently, able to go undetected through U.S airspace for roughly forty minutes despite the fact that the US. military is reported to have the most sophisticated and advanced radar systems in the world and that during this forty minute undetected period the jet airliner turned around somewhere in the Midwest, headed back to Washington, D.C., and performed its final aerial acrobatics before slamming into the Pentagon?

---

- Did you know that Phillip Zelikow was appointed as the executive director of the 9-11 Commission -- a position which was authorized to direct the research of 75 Commission staff members and, as such, was responsible for determining what issues would, and would not, be pursued by that staff -- or how rigorously -- and what 'facts' and witnesses would, and would not, be examined by the commissioners who conducted public hearings?

---

- Did you know that Phillip Zelikow had previously worked with Condoleezza Rice in the National Security Council during the presidency of George H. W. Bush and later co-authored a book with her during the 90's, and, then, helped Rice organize the National Security Council during the presidency of George W. Bush, and, then, was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board where he was the primary author of NSS 2002 (The National Security Strategy of the United States of America] which laid out, in detail, the position first enunciated by President Bush at West Point in June of 2002 concerning the alleged right of the United States to attack anyone who was perceived to represent a potential threat to U.S. interests even if such countries, states, or groups did not currently constitute a 'clear and present danger' to the integrity of the continental United States and had not attacked America or Americans and, consequently, Zelikow had a vested interest in ensuring that the 9-11 Commission reached conclusions which were consonant with NSS 2002 ... which is exactly what happened?

---

- Did you know that prior to his position as executive director of the 9-11 Commission, Phillip Zelikow had a number of conversations with Richard Clarke, the former National Security Counterterrorism director in 2000 and 2001, about al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, but Zelikow was never called as a witness by the 9-11 Commission concerning the nature of those discussions?

---

- Did you know that at least half of the ten commissioners, both Democrats and Republicans, who conducted the televised public inquiries had the sort of associations, ties, histories, and conflicts of interest (either with oil companies, Saudi Arabia, George Tenet, the intelligence community, the Iran-Contra cover-up scandal, the Bush administration, or who were active proponents for attacking Iraq long before 2003) which should have precluded them from serving as members of such an inquiry ... especially, if one wanted to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and, thereby, eliminate the possibility of questions being raised in relation to the integrity of the conclusions and findings of such a commission?

---

- Did you know that on many occasions, official commissions are often not meant to arrive at the truth but are, instead, a political tool used to give the impression of seriousness without much underlying substance?

---

- Did you know that such commissions are often exercises in misdirection away from root problems and causes so that vested interests will remain protected despite an illusory veneer of critical investigation and thoroughness?

---

- Did you know that every theory, without exception, concerning the causes of the events of 9-11 is a conspiracy theory, including the "official" theory of the U.S. government which maintains that 19-plus individuals conspired together as members of al-Qaeda to attack the United States on Septemeber 11, 2001, and, therefore, the task of any such conspiracy theory is to be able to plausibly account for all or the vast majority of the available data and evidence?

---

- Did you know that the official theory of the United States government concerning the events of 9-11 cannot plausibly and reasonably account for all of the foregoing facts and evidence in a way that is consistent with their theory?

---

- Did you know that in the coming days more "Did you knows" will be published which also indicate that the official theory of the United States government concerning the events of 9-11 does not reasonably, plausibly, or credibly account for the available facts and evidence with respect to the pre-September environment leading up to the events of 9-11, as well as in relation to the failure of the military to follow standard operating procedures in conjunction with dealing with hijackings on 9-11?

---

- Did you know that 40 % of those who view Fox television on a regular basis still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11 and/or conspired with al-Qaeda to set the events of 9-11 in motion despite the fact that after much disinformation, misinformation, hemming, hawing, and evasion from members of the Bush administration, even President Bush finally admitted in a September-2006 interview with Brian Williams of NBC that the President knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11?

---

There were a lot of innocent people who were murdered on 9-11 by someone ... by a group of conspirators. Everyone agrees that conspirators were responsible for these murders, but there is a difference of opinion concerning the precise identity of such conspirators.


The ones who died left behind families, friends, and colleagues. I believe all Americans have a duty of care toward those who died on September 11, 2001, as well as their families, to bring to justice those who are responsible for the events of 9-11.

---

I do not think that it is an overstatement to say that the viability of democracy in America may very well be at stake if steps are not taken to redress the wrongs which have been done to the American people and to people in other lands due to the events of 9-11. This is all far from over, unless, of course, one just wishes to go back to sleep or be annoyed that someone has disturbed his or her somnambulating ways.


If you wish to read further on these matters, then, there are a number of books and web sites which not only corroborate the material covered in the foregoing "Did you know" queries, but, as well, these books and websires critically analyze many more issues surrounding the events of 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond. Even if one wishes to adopt a skeptical stance concerning the implications of the foregoing queries (or the following books/web sites), there are a vast array of crucial questions which are left that still require answers -- too many questions of substantial, abiding importance to just let slip away.

---

Crossing the Rubicon - Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers


The New Pearl Harbor - David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press


Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11 David Ray Griffin, John Knox Press


The War On Freedom - Nafeez Mosaddaeq Ahmed, Tree of Life Publications


The War on Truth - Nafeez Mosaddaeq Ahmed, Olive Branch Press


Behind the War On Terror - Nafeez Mosaddaeq Ahmed, New Society Publishers



In addition to the foregoing, you may want to visit the following web sites:


9-11 Video - Raises a lot of important questions


From The Wilderness


911 Truth


Global Outlook - The Magazine of 9-11 Truth Movement


9-11 Research


9-11 Citizen's Watch

---

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 12

Broadcasting from our new podcast studio, Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 12 is now available for downloading by clicking here .

 This week's edition includes music, poetry, a story entitled The Snake Charmer, an essay entitled Zikr, and a commentary entitled Common Roots, Part 1. We hope you'll join us and catch the Sufi Reflections ship before it sails!

 

Reality without a Name

Reality without a Name is a critical examination of a variety of themes and principles that are of relevance to exploring the Sufi mystical path. Using Sufism: A Short Introduction by Professor William C. Chittick as a case study, the present work takes the shortcomings, problems, and errors of the latter book as a starting point for explicating an array of misunderstanding concerning the Sufi spiritual tradition which are prevalent inside and outside of academia. In addition, the present case study seeks to utilize the ensuing discussion to develop a constructive approach to engaging – at least in conceptual terms – the Sufi path. Reality without a Name provides readers with a wealth of material that may, God willing, be of value to readers from various background.

On the one hand, this book will serve as an excellent introduction to the basic teachings of the Sufi path for those with little knowledge of this spiritual tradition. On the other hand, this work offers, hopefully, numerous insights for more advance understandings, as well. God willing, readers, whatever their backgrounds, will be provided with a great many issues upon which to reflect.

The present critique is potentially significant in several respects. Perhaps most crucial among these considerations is that Reality without a Name serves as a warning. All too many students are at risk of being misled and miseducated in relation to both Islam and the Sufi path when books like Sufism: A Short Introduction are permitted to go unchallenged with respect to the problematic and error-filled manner in which the Sufi mystical path is being "explained" through such books. Sufism: A Short Introduction is only one book, but it is emblematic and, therefore, instuctive, concerning much of what is wrong with the way in which certain facets of academia approach 'undrstanding' tasawwuf.

If you would like to order this book, click on the following link: REALITY WITHOUT A NAME

Ode To Those Who Wage War On Peace

To listen to this poem: LISTEN


Thinking about events,
a lament forms in my heart
for the innocent ones
whose lives are cast into ruins
beneath boots of glory
that march to visionary
commands from leaders gone
mad with the ego’s song of
self-serving delusion.

Wondering what goes on
in the hidden depths beyond
surface shallows which flow
in public space, I try to
fathom the undertow
set in motion by ones with
power and ambition
so that I may try to chart
a course for my own heart.

Navigating becomes
nightmarish when contending
with the lies used to bend
lines that define life maps which
defy one’s moral compass
while edicts are pronounced
that threaten rendition or
charges of sedition
if one should disobey.

Wondering about those
human beings whose bodies
lay still beneath rubble
or freshly dug earth due to
wondrous technology
and whose mortal sin was to
breathe air in the wrong place,
I also wonder about
those who kill in such haste.

My soul fills with pain and
tears as images of once-
laughing children -- now wrapped
in shrouds of silent witness
to newly won freedom --
haunt my heart’s memory,
while it searches for some
defensible theory for
murderous rage … but fails.

Wondering why ‘leaders’
feel so free to abuse the
lives of others and
treat that which is sacred with
low purposes of greed,
oppression, and corruption,
I seek answers amidst
dark deeds of mis-adventure
and see evil’s presence.

Re-framing is a tool
used by the tacticians of
falsehood to paint pictures
of truth and beauty … hiding
order’s nuanced decay
which seeps into people’s day,
turning light into night,
until life becomes entombed
in someone’s agenda.

Wondering, wandering
about history which shows,
again and again what
reasoning knows to be truth
concerning the monsters
who ruthlessly play games
of fame exploiting mere
human beings as life-like
toys for competing whims.

Anguished cries of the weak,
the disenfranchised, the poor
and hungry are heard by
models of civility
who claim they understand
this plight, but duty demands
that the rich get richer
while the rest are shown the door
to noble sacrifice.

I wonder about those
who label all terror but
their own as ignoble
while devising strategies
to inspire needless
fear to better control the
cattle who are to be
slaughtered on the altar of
service to endless lust.

Battles were lost as trust
died with the first casualty
of war and innocence
disappeared in the mangled,
burnt bodies of those who
did not transgress against us
yet were deemed suitable
for torture, rape, and murder
by those with diseased souls.

Wondering what to do
When faced with such relentless
Narcissism, I pray
for true guidance that blesses
me with understanding,
strength, courage and character
so that I might resist,
in moral ways, the darkness
which wages war on peace.

What's Right With Islam by Imam Rauf - A Critical Commentary

In What's Right With Islam Imam Rauf says “There is little doubt today that the rise of religious fundamentalism represented the reaction of religion against the antireligious secular modernism that peaked in the mid-twentieth century.” (page xx of Preface)

I'm not so sure this is correct. Fundamentalism, in its essence, is not an expression of spirituality but, rather, constitutes a desire for power that appears in the guise of a religious form. The power in question has to do with a desire to impose one's perspective on others quite irrespective of the presence of secular modernism – although secular modernism can assume the role of a stage prop which can be used to incite the emotions of a target audience that fundamentalists seek to control in order to bring about the agenda of the latter.

This tendency to seek power and control over the lives of others existed within the Muslim community from a very early period … just like it exists, as a potential, within all communities -- both religious and non-religious. Historically, Muslim theologians were often motivated by the desire for such power – that is, a desire to expand their sphere of influence by establishing and imposing the religious norms to which the theologians believed everyone should be subject. Similarly, Muslim jurists frequently were inclined toward such an agenda and, thereby sought to enforce a certain conception of life upon everyone within the community, and, as well, many Muslim politicians were operating out of a similar sort of framework in which the ultimate goal was to rule over people rather than serve God even as the idea of the latter was used to hide a program of authoritarian control.

Whatever the actual sins of modernism, colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism may be – and these sins are many – the fact of the matter is that those in the Muslim community (theologians, jurists, political rulers) who were either jockeying for power or who were attempting to hold on to power used the very real sins of colonialism et al as a means of misdirecting attention away from their own sins (that is, would-be Muslim “leaders”) of wishing to control, exploit, and abuse Muslim peoples. Among fundamentalists, the issue was never – except superficially -- about defending Muslims from the Western hordes but was, rather, an attempt to make sure that the reins of oppression were held by so-called 'Muslims' rather than Westerners.

If one takes a look at the long list of fundamentalists from: the karijis [a sect that came into being during the Caliphacy of Hazrat 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and who – that is, the kharijis – considered all Muslims who did not accept their interpretation of Islam to be infidels], down through: ibn Taymiyyah [1268-1328 who, among other things glorified the idea of jihad – which he construed in terms of armed conflict – to be superior to Islamic pillars such as fasting and the hajj or pilgrimage], Muhammad al Wahhab [1703 – 1792 who was a founder of a radical, puritanical, dogmatic theology which calls for a return to medieval Islam], Muhammad Abdus Salam Faraj [1952- 1982 who argued that all of the problems existing in the Muslim world were the result of a failure by Muslims to consider jihad, in the sense of armed, violent conflict, to be a mandatory duty of every Muslim in relation to combating all non-Muslims as well as those who were 'insufficiently' Muslim], and such groups as the Taliban, al-Qaidah, Hamas, and Hezbollah (along with many other individuals and groups who have not been noted above), all of these groups and individuals have one thing in common – the desire to recreate the world in their own image – using force and compulsion wherever necessary. The common thread among the foregoing fundamentalists is very resonant with the motivation running through modernism, colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism – namely, a desire to impose one's 'will to power' upon innocent people, along with the presumption accompanying this 'will to power' – namely, that one has the right to manipulate and oppress the lives of others.

Rallying cries revolve around this or that cause (whether this be the panicked hysteria in the West concerning religious fundamentalism, or the frenzied mobs in the East focused on the evils of capitalism and imperialism), but these rallying cries are just techniques of manipulation used by both sides for purposes of creating and managing the fear of various communities. People who are afraid constitute a formidable resource which has been mined for centuries by those who wish to exploit that resource to the advantage of the 'leaders' and to the disadvantage of the people who are sacrificed while fear is stoked to a burning rage all around the world.

To be sure, there are people in the Muslim world who are quite prepared to kill anyone who do not think as the former do. However, there also are people in the West who are quite prepared to kill anyone who stands in the way of capitalistic or 'democratic' hegemony – whether of an economical, political, and/or militaristic sort. The existence of such real threats is just a pretext that can serve to generate undue influence upon populations – both East and West – in order to induce those respective populations to act out of fear rather than insight, understanding, compassion, or wisdom.

Like actors in a gangster movie, the players on whatever side (West or East) were, and are, interested only in being able to impose their own will on other human beings. The conflict was not and is not a clash of cultures as Huntington tries to argue but, instead, a clash of mobsters and tyrants who were, and are, seeking to slice up the worldly pie in a manner that was, and is, advantageous to any given mobster organization – whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

Imam Rauf indicates that being “told that Islam is a religion of peace doesn't jive with images of Muslims” advocating violence against America, Christians, or Jews. On the other hand, being told that the West stands for democracy, freedom, and justice doesn't jive with images of Western corporations, governments, and militaries destroying lives, communities, and countries all over the world while they plunder resources of various peoples that have been usurped by oppressive tyrants in such communities and countries which (that is, the tyrants) are often created, funded, supported and protected by the West.

All too many people in the West and East seem to forget that Jesus (peace be upon him) is reported to have raised a question about those who would find fault with the mote in the eye of one's neighbor while ignoring the beam in one's own eye. Framing the issues becomes very important in the war to control how people think and feel about any given situation.

Acting in inhuman ways becomes so much easier when people – with the help of the media, government officials, and religious figures -- can define a problem in terms of the barbaric and uncivilized acts of 'the Other' while completely ignoring the etiological role played by the many atrocities perpetrated against the Other prior to the onset of the Other's treacherous acts – atrocities which are largely or totally ignored by a given side's way of framing things in a self-serving, distorted, and self-righteous manner. The other side is always the causal agent for the existence of evil in the world, when, in truth, events are almost always due to a more complicated dynamic in which forces and factors from all sides converge and synergistically interact with one another to generate crisis, escalation, and tragedy.

Early in What's Right With Islam Imam Rauf speaks a little about the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, referring to that aspect of the amendment which addresses the issue of the relationship between church and state. He indicates how the founding fathers wished to ensure that religion would not be able to gain access to the corridors of power and, in the process, be imposed upon people. However, Imam Rauf indicates that later on, during the twentieth century, a more militant, anti-religious form of secularism began to hold sway within the institutions of governance, thereby violating what he believed to be the actual intent of the First Amendment authors which, according to Imam Rauf, was never meant to create an atheistic or agnostic society.

Trying to figure out the intent of the founding fathers is a tricky business. Legislatures, courts, jurists, educators, and commentators have been trying to do this for more than two hundred years.

There are, at least, several components to this hermeneutical task. First, there is the intent of the people who actually drafted the amendment, and, secondly, there is the intent of those who voted on the amendment.

Even if there are written records to document, to a degree, what the drafters of an amendment were thinking when a given amendment was proposed, there may not be a great deal of information which details the thinking process of those who voted for or against such an amendment. Did the thinking of the latter coincide precisely with that of the drafters of an amendment, or did it differ, and, if so, in what way? How did they envision the amendment playing out in the actual course of events? What did they believe the constraints and degrees of freedom of such an amendment to be? What did they believe they were signing on to or rejecting?

Were all the people who voted on the amendment inclined toward religion, and, if so, in what way were they religious? Were they orthodox something or other? What did orthodoxy mean to them? Did they have a formal affiliation with religious institutions, or were they independent thinkers and doers when it came to religious observance? What role did they believe government should play in supporting and helping people to seek and, possibly, secure the purpose of life? What did they believe the purpose of life to be?

In order for someone, such as Imam Rauf, to make a statement about what the intention of the founding fathers was, or was not, with respect to the First Amendment, one would have to be able to answer all of the foregoing questions and quite a few more. Imam Rauf may, or may not, be correct in his opinion concerning the intent of the founding fathers, but this is an empirical question which requires evidence not just unsupported supposition.

More importantly, perhaps, there is an issue concerning the First Amendment which Imam Rauf – along with many others – does not seem to consider. If I understand his position, he feels there should be some sort of balance between the aspirations of the state and the aspirations of religion such that while the latter should never be permitted to dominate activities of state, nonetheless, the state should not oppose or undermine the attempts of religious people to give active expression to their individual faith.

One question which I have with respect to the foregoing is this: Why should the state be permitted to have any aspirations at all? Another question I have is the following: Why should the aspirations of the state be permitted to dominate people's lives and be imposed on them if one prevents religion from doing this very same thing?

If the First Amendment is intended, in part, as a safeguard against the unwarranted intrusion of any given religious framework into the lives of the people, then, why should one permit the intrusion of any given political framework into the lives of people? If the purpose of this aspect of the First Amendment is to ensure that people do not become unwilling victims of the imposed religious aspirations of others, then, why is there not a reciprocal protection against the imposed political, economic, and philosophical aspirations of others? Why are political and economic philosophies being given a free pass with respect to retaining the right to be imposed on unwilling recipients? If the idea of this facet of the First Amendment is to protect the people against being oppressed by a religion not of their own choosing, then, why are the people not being protected against being oppressed by political philosophies, economic programs, and public policies not of their own choosing? Why is the presumption of governance being given to philosophy – whether this is political, economic, and/or social in nature?

Oppression is oppression whether it comes from religion or politics. If the majority were of a given religious denomination, we do not say: 'Well, the will of the majority should be enforced but, rather, point to the First Amendment and indicate that no religion – irrespective of its majority status – may dominate state policy'.

In a sense, this portion of the First Amendment is directed toward protecting the rights of minorities against the imposition of religious beliefs. No such protections are afforded minorities against the imposition of unwanted political and philosophical beliefs.

I find this to be a curious asymmetry. Is one to suppose that politics and philosophy are somehow more objective or more neutral or less biased than religion is? Is one to assume that politics and philosophy are inherently more humane, just, and compassionate than any religion could be? Is one to automatically presume that politics and philosophy are better equipped to be less arbitrary, oppressive and authoritarian than religions are?

What and where is the evidence to support such presumption? Why is it okay to rule over people in the name of politics, economics, or philosophy, but not okay to rule over people in the name of religion?

Irrespective of what the founding fathers may, or may not, have thought about such matters, I agree with the idea that religion ought not to become entangled in the principles of governance in such a way that religion is imposed on the community being governed. At the same time, I also believe that politics, economics, and philosophy ought not to become entangled in the principles of governance in such a way that they are imposed on the community being governed.

If one agrees that the principles inherent in protecting people from having religion imposed on them are valuable safeguards against tyranny and oppression, then, consistency requires that the same principles be applied to safeguard the public against the tyranny and oppression inherent in any political, philosophical, or economic system that is imposed on others without their consent. Moreover, if people do not wish to be consistent in the manner in which they seek to protect the community against tyranny and oppression, then, one needs to inquire into the nature of the motivation underlying this inconsistency and preferential asymmetry.

Imam Rauf claims that: “Muslims believe that America needs to reestablish the original understanding of the First Amendment, which balances the separation of church and state with freedom of religion by allowing all religions equal standing and by honoring the role of religion in building a good society. This balance is enormously important to Muslims.”

Aside from the fact that I find it somewhat disconcerting to be told that Muslims believe 'such and such' when I am a Muslim, and I don't necessarily believe what Imam Rauf says I believe, and aside from the already mentioned idea that I'm not sure that what he claims the original intention or understanding of the First Amendment to be actually constitutes the original understanding of all parties who voted on that amendment, I also wonder about the meaning of the idea of 'balance' to which he alludes in his foregoing claim.

How does one maintain a separation of church and state in a balanced way? What are the criteria by which one evaluates the conditions of balance? What methodologies are to be used in analyzing the idea of balance? What assumptions underlie such criteria and methodologies? How does one define the “good society”? What justifies such a definition?

For example, suppose a person's spiritual perspective holds that killing is wrong, as well as maintains that most wars are not about protecting the homeland but advancing the special interests of various corporations, power blocs, and ideological agendas, then, 'collateral damage' is really a euphemism for cold-blooded murder and not just an 'unfortunate' side effect of that which is necessary (and necessity here is always framed by those who are seeking to advance their economic, political, material, and/or financial interests). How does one 'balance' such a perspective with the perspective of those who have no problem with taking innocent human lives if this will further their worldly goals? Why should the former be required to support (e.g., through taxes) the perpetration of that (i.e., murder and oppression) to which they do not subscribe, and why should they have to be subjected to the possibility of being charged with 'treasonous' behavior simply because they do not want to lend the kind of support that violates their sense of right and wrong?

There is no balance here. An almost automatic preference tends to be given to the war-mongers, as well as to those with vested material/financial interests and to those who have an ideological agenda which they wish to oppressively impose on people, both domestic and foreign, and the question is why are there no protections against such political, philosophical, and economic tyranny if a central purpose of the 1st amendment is to ensure that oppressive elements do not control governance and if one of the central purposes of the Bill of Rights is to protect, among other things, disempowered minorities against the tyranny of majority rule?

Religion is about meaning, purpose, identity, values, and potential. Philosophy and politics are about meaning, purpose, identity, values, and potential. How does one balance conflicting and sometimes diametrically opposed ways of setting about to answer questions concerning such themes?

If the founding fathers believed in such a balance, then, what, precisely, did they mean by this? Did they really understand what they were advocating or voting on? Did they have it all worked out, or was it something of a rough idea whose structural character and horizons were lost in shadows of unasked questions and unknown contingencies?

If one were to bring the founding fathers together today and ask them about whether they truly believed in the idea of allowing all religions equal standing and whether, or not, the founding fathers wanted to honor the role of all religion in building a good society, how would they respond? Would they maintain that, for example, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, as well as the spiritual ways of various Native peoples constituted authentic religious traditions and ought to be accorded equal standing and honored for the way in which they contributed to the building of a good society? And, if they truly believed all these things, then, why – to raise but one issue -- were Native peoples treated in such abysmal, destructive, inhumane ways from the very beginning?

Imam Rauf goes on to say that: “Muslims have yet to fully incorporate the institutional expressions of democratic capitalism … into their various essential institutions: the rule of law (an independent judiciary), human rights, a stable currency, equal opportunity, free markets, social safety nets, and so forth. These principles, in my view, are among the most important institutional expressions of the second commandment that humanity has invented.” Aside from the problems I might have with Imam Rauf's tendency, from time to time, to make sweeping generalizations about what Muslims have, or have not, done across all geographical areas and historical periods, and aside from any questions which I might have about what it would mean to “fully incorporate” such institutional expressions of democratic capitalism or whether even the West has yet to accomplish this, I have a lot of difficulty with the mythology being spewed forth with respect to the alleged accomplishments of 'democratic capitalism'.

For instance, one could talk about the manner in which the judiciary has often been anything but independent as they (across all levels – from municipal, to county, state, and federal) frequently served the interests of power, capital and corporations against the interests of the poor and unempowered. As far as human rights are concerned, one might want to speak with Native peoples, Blacks, women and other minority groups who subsist along the margins of enjoying the full protections of human rights. Moreover, we don't have a stable currency, we have a floating value currency which has been set loose from any meaningful backing by actual material value (e.g., gold or silver), and the jury is still out as to how long the whole financial house of cards will survive before it falls apart, as has occurred on so many occasions throughout U.S. history. In the matter of 'equal opportunity', there are tens of millions of people in the United States who do not have equal opportunity with respect to education, jobs, housing, legal representation, medical care, or government access. In addition, the markets are not free but are distorted by such forces as: government subsidies, corporate welfare, a judiciary which lacks sufficient intelligence to understand that a corporation is not a person, an inequitable system of taxation, regulatory agencies which dance to the beat of lobbyists, and corrupt politicians who serve vested interests against the interests of the people they supposedly represent and against the interests of a truly free system of enterprise. Finally, it is difficult to get excited about a social safety net which has so many rips and tears that millions upon millions of people have fallen through the holes in that safety net.

Imam Rauf maintains that what America has done right is to create institutions which have perfected democratic capitalism. At any moment I expect Rod Serling to step out of the shadows and begin to talk about a man (namely Imam Rauf) who does not yet seem to understand that he has become trapped in the Twilight Zone as this inhabitant of a surreal realm addresses people as if his perceptions and beliefs defined the true nature of things even though what is being discussed by Imam Rauf is not perfected, is not really democratic, and constitutes a perverted, re-framed notion of what capitalism might have been if it had been guided by qualities of justice, morality, and spirituality rather than qualities of greed, inhumanity, and oppression.

[If you would like to read the remaining five parts of this essay, please go to:



What's Right With Islam by Imam Rauf - A Critical Commentary - Part Two

Another Lighthouse -- This one on Long Island

 

Haqiqah

Haqiqah is the Reality of all realities. Haqiqah is the Truth behind all truths.Haqiqah is not a substance, thing, object, entity, material, field, force or energy. Yet, Haqiqah is "woven" into the fabric of each of these.

Haqiqah does not occupy time or space, Rather, time and space exist by virtue of Haqiqah.

Haqiqah is neither a quantity nor a quality, While all quantities and qualities, receive their properties through Haqiqah.Haqiqah is not a function of ideas, concepts, thoughts, understandings, interpretations, or theories. However. all of these presuppose, and make allusions to, Haqiqah, each in its own way.

Haqiqah is not religion, philosophy, science, or mythology. On the other hand, Haqiqah is sought by, and is the raison d'etre of, all of these activities.Haqiqah can neither be described nor explained. Nonetheless, descriptions and explanations, whether correct or incorrect, cannot exist except through Haqiqah.The eyes, mind, imagination, heart and spirit all see Haqiqah according to their capacity to do so. But, Haqiqah transcends what is seen.

Consciousness, being, will, light, hearing, and speech all exist because of the presence of Haqiqah. Nevertheless, all of these bear witness to the absence of Haqiqah, each in its own way.Every chord, song, melody, rhythm, counterpoint, harmony, chant, hymn, tune, aria and symphony is an echo of Haqiqah. Every drawing, painting, sketch, tracing, etching, spattering, composition, impression, collage and picture is an attempt, on one level or another, to capture Haqiqah.

Information, knowledge, understanding, insight, inspiration, gnosis, and revelation simultaneously disclose and conceal Haqiqah, each according to its nature. Everything reflects Haqiqah in terms of its capacity to do so, but Haqiqah is independent of all capacities.Genius praises the intelligence of Haqiqah but cannot fathom the depths of wisdom. Talent soars on the wings provided by Haqiqah but cannot comprehend what makes flight possible.Purpose and meaning have value only to the extent they give expression to the mystery which Haqiqah has placed within us. Significance derives its importance from what Haqiqah loans to it.

Haqiqah underwrites our being, but we remain heedless of the presence of Haqiqah. Our vision is made possible by Haqiqah, but most of us continue to be blind to the source of the light through which the visible becomes manifest.We should will ourselves to seek Haqiqah. Yet, we suffer from complete paralysis without the restorative assistance of Haqiqah.

Haqiqah enables us to act. However, most of us act as if we were independent of Haqiqah.

We are able to speak due to Haqiqah. Unfortunately, most of us often use this gift to speak out against and distort Haqiqah.

We hear because of the mercy extended to us through Haqiqah. Nonetheless, many of us remain deaf to the call of Haqiqah.

We swim in an ocean of Haqiqah. Somehow, most of us manage to stay dry.

Haqiqah comes with every breath we take. But, many of us inhale the oxygen and reject Haqiqah. Every second our hearts beat to the rhythm of Haqiqah. Nevertheless, most of us do not understand the significance of the sound.Our consciousness is aware of itself, and we think this is quite amazing. However, most of us are unaware of Haqiqah, and, as a result, we trivialize the potential of consciousness.

Haqiqah bears witness to everything we do. Yet, many of us are not interested in reciprocating.

Haqiqah seeks us out of love, knowledge and generosity. Many of us seek to run away due to narcissism, ignorance and selfishness.

Haqiqah always treats us with justice. Many of us are intent on treating Haqiqah with injustice.

Haqiqah calls on us to forget falsehood and remember reality. Many of us call on ourselves to forget reality and remember falsehood.

Haqiqah gives expression to tidings of both hope and danger through prophets, saints and spiritual guides. Many of us ridicule both kinds of message.

When we deny Haqiqah, we deny our true selves. When we ignore Haqiqah, we ignore our essential spiritual capacities.Some people say the culmination of mysticism involves union with God. However, one cannot attain what already is the case.

According to Sufi masters, one of the primary goals of the mystical path is the following: If God wishes, we should aspire to have the ignorance and darkness dispelled which prevent us from experiencing and reflecting the presence of Haqiqah in our lives and being. Consequently, one of the fundamental accomplishments of the mystical path is to realize, as fully as God gives us the capacity to do so, that, in essence, we are nothing but a manifestation of Haqiqah.

In order for this to occur, what needs to disappear is, if God wishes, the illusion that other than this could be true.

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 11

This week's edition of the Sufi Reflections Podcast includes a story entitled The Interview, music, poetry, an essay entitled Jihad, and a commentary entitled Terrorism, Part 4. We hope you will join us. Download by clicking here . 

Prayer

Prayer has its roots in pre-eternity when the fixed forms of non-existence called out to God to be given created existence. Prayer permeates the realm of spirits in pre-eternity when they responded positively to God's inquiry as to whether or not the spirits acknowledged God as their Lord.The sound of prayers praising God comes from every corner of created existence - from the smallest sub-atomic particle and even smaller, to the universe and beyond.

Every manner of created being has its own unique mode of prayer.Angels were engaged in prayer before human beings came into created existence. Indeed, there are some angels so engrossed in prayers of praise and glorification of God they are not aware human beings have been created. Prayer was on the lips of Adam (peace be upon him) when he sought God's forgiveness for his transgression. Prayers seeking Divine guidance, support, deliverance, protection, favor, mercy and compassion have issued forth from the lips of all one hundred and twenty-four thousand Prophets and their communities who followed after Adam (peace be upon him).

Saints and ordinary people alike engage in prayer. Each praises God, or seeks from Divinity, according to her or his spiritual understanding, condition, intention and circumstances.If one sincerely has faith in the reality of prayer, every manner of prayer raises one up to God. If one is absent to oneself in prayer, one becomes present to God.

Some prayers petition God for the satisfaction of material desires. Other prayers seek intercession on behalf of the poor, the sick, the homeless, the lost, the abused, and the wayward.There are prayers for forgiveness and prayers of thanksgiving. There are prayers of loneliness and prayers of desperation.Some people pray and ask: "Why?". Others pray and submit without knowing why.There are prayers of separation. There are prayers of union.Some people pray with certainty. Others pray with doubts and questions.There are prayers of the true self. There are prayers of the false self.Some individuals pray frequently. Others may pray only a few times in their lives.Prayers are silent and voiced, hymned and chanted. Prayers come standing, sitting, kneeling, lying down and in prostration.

On the Sufi path, different prayers may emerge from different spiritual stations. For example, the prayers of those whom are going through the station of patience may be different from the prayers of those whom are in the station of patience. Alternatively, the prayers of those whom are wayfaring through the station of longing may be different from those who are in the station of gratitude.

The mind prays in one way. The heart prays in, yet, another way. The spirit prays in still another way. and so on.Each aspect of our being has its own modality of praying. However, the best prayer is when all of these are combined together in a harmonious and united manner. In other words, one's prayer should be with one's whole, body, mind, soul, heart, spirit and essential capacity.

According to practitioners of the Sufi path, we should seek to pray with sincerity and for sincerity. Moreover, we should pray out of humility.We should pray with the realization we are impoverished and have no resources of our own. We are dependent totally on God's mercy. We should pray with the understanding there is no power or protection except through God. If we lack such an understanding, we should pray to God to remove our pride and arrogance.Sufi masters indicate an individual should pray with tears of longing and gratitude and joy and repentance. If we cannot pray in this way, then we should seek this blessing from God. In addition, we should pray out of renunciation of the world. In other words, all of our prayers should be out of love for, service to, and the pleasure of God.

From the perspective of the Sufi masters, we should pray without ceasing. Our lives should become prayer.Our prayers should be done with the understanding that God is the trustee of all our affairs. Furthermore, God is the One Who, again and again and again, gives to us independently of whether we have done anything to earn or merit that for which we pray.Sufi masters maintain we should be constantly seeking the welfare of our parents. Moreover, we should pray for others to receive what we are seeking for ourselves.We should pray for both believers and non-believers. We should pray to be free of passing judgment on others.Practitioners of the Sufi path indicate we should pray for the spirits of those who have passed before us. Furthermore, we should pray for the spirits of those who will come after us. We should pray for the spiritual and material well-being of our families and the members of the community. We should pray for the well-being of the people of all nations and for the well-being of all creation.

Sufi masters indicate we should pray for God to enable us not to waste the precious gift of time. We should pray that, God willing, we do not squander our opportunity to realize our true identity. We should pray to fulfil the purpose of our life.We should pray for God to show us things as they really are. We should seek release from all our illusions, delusions and spiritual veils.

According to practitioners of the Sufi path, we should pray that whatever enemies we may have become the friends of God. For, if they become the friends of God, then, God willing, they may become a source of blessings for all of humanity, including us.

We should pray our hearts become purified. We should pray our spirits become perfected.Sufi masters advocate we pray that God permit us to overcome our spiritual weakness, rebelliousness, forgetfulness, and heedlessness. Furthermore, we should pray for God to forgive us our transgressions of omission and commission, both in relation to those transgressions of which we are aware as well as to those of which we are not aware. We should pray for God to increase us in remembrance of Divinity. Moreover, we should pray for God to color us with the lights of Divinity. The masters of the Sufi way urge us to never stop praying to God.

We should never despair of God's mercy and generosity. On the other hand, we should pray to God for patience while our affairs are being arranged in accordance with Divine will. We also should pray to God for submission and acceptance with respect to the Divine disposition of our affairs.According to Sufi masters, we should pray that God fills our being with love of Divinity. Furthermore, we should pray that God permits us to express our love by, among other things, fulfilling our duties of care in relation to creation.We should pray to God for us to become instruments of justice and not injustice. In addition, we should pray to God that we live a life of spiritual nobility and not ignominy.Sufi masters encourage us to pray for God to increase us in levels of faith and spiritual understanding. Also, we should pray to God to be permitted to learn how to embrace sacrifice as a way of life so that we may, God willing, act in accordance with our spiritual understanding.We should pray for God to teach us how to derive spiritual benefit from the trials and difficulties of our lives.

Moreover, we should pray to God with gratitude for the countless blessings which have been conferred on us throughout our lives.We should pray we come to worship and cherish God with every dimension of our being. In addition, we should pray that we return to our spiritual origins, both pleased with, and pleasing to, God.

The Sufi master of all Sufi masters has said we should pray to God as if we could see the Divine. However, even if we are not able to achieve this level of prayer, nonetheless, we should pray with the certainty that God sees us.

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 10

This edition of the Sufi Reflections Podcast includes: Music, poetry a story entitled The Artisan from Mystical Horizons, an essay about balance, and Part 3 of a commentary about terrorism. To download a copy of this podcast, click here .


 We hope you'll join us. 

The Interview

A women who appeared to be fifty-something straddled the doorway through which she had just entered the room, opened the folder she was carrying, raised to her eyes the glasses strung around her neck, scanned the contents of the folder, looked around the room, and, then, settled on a man sitting in the corner reading a magazine. “Mr. Carlyle?” she said somewhat hesitantly.

The man reading the magazine looked up, smiled and replied: “That’s me.”

The woman motioned for him to follow her into the area beyond the reception area. Mr. Carlyle placed his magazine on the table by his chair and did as requested.

On the other side of the door was a corridor leading to a number of interview rooms. The woman looked back over her shoulder to make sure that her charge was still in tow and proceeded to walk down the corridor until she reached a door marked ‘C’, turned the knob, and disappeared.

When Mr. Carlyle reached the doorway to Room ‘C’, he found the woman waiting for him by the door in the room’s interior. She smiled in a perfunctory manner and urged the man to enter the room.

Pointing to a chair, she invited Mr. Carlyle to be seated. She, then, navigated her way to a chair opposite the man on the other side of a medium-sized table in the middle of the room.

Placing the folder before her, she sat down. She interlaced her fingers and rested her elbows on the table.

She began with: “Hello. My name is Helen Anderson. I assume everything has been explained to you by Mr. Townsend. However, just to be clear about things, I’ll outline the purpose of our meeting.”

She continued on with: “This meeting is stage 5 of our vetting process. You already have been given a battery of intelligence, psychological, aptitude, and personality tests. Those tests have now been scored and analyzed.

“Obviously, people here have liked what they have seen so far in relation to your scores. Otherwise, you would not have been invited to this session.”

She had the polished, somewhat detached delivery of a person who had said the same words a thousand times before to other candidates. Her manner was neither friendly nor hostile but, rather, geared toward the sort of neutrality which is intended to perform a task efficiently, with as few human entanglements as possible.

She proceeded on with her introduction. “I am not an employee of the organization which is expressing an interest in your services. I am an independent contractor whose task is to conduct an interview and make recommendations on the basis of that exchange with respect to your possible ‘suitability’ for the position in question.

“I urge you to speak forthrightly about anything I may ask. Everything which takes place in this room is being recorded, and I can assure you that the consulting company for which I work will spare no effort to authenticate whatever statements, comments, or claims you may make during this interview.

“Do you have any questions about the purpose of this meeting or in relation to anything which has been said so far? When she saw Mr. Carlyle shake his head in the negative, she said: “Good, let’s move forward.”

She opened the folder in front of her, picked up the top sheet, perused its contents, and placed the piece of paper face down on the table surface to the left of the folder. She, then, placed her forearms across the top of the folder. Her palms were slightly raised above the table with her forefingers directed toward Mr. Carlyle.

“Tell me about your marriage, Mr. Carlyle,” and as she spoke her eyes studied the man with a gaze trained to miss nothing of what might be manifested by the interviewee.

Mr. Carlyle thought for a moment and shrugged a little. “I’m not sure what to say.” But, a few seconds later he became somewhat more expansive in his response.

“We’ve been married for seven years and have three children ... two boys and a girl. Because of the nature of my work, we have had to move a few times ... which has carried some stresses with it, but, on the whole, I would say that my wife and I enjoy a very good, loving relationship.

“When at work, I call her four or five times a day just to see how she and the children are doing ... to see if there is anything I can do. I like to know that everything is okay at home as well as what people are up to ... you know, stay on top of things.”

Ms. Anderson interjected with: “How do you and your wife make decisions?”

Not much time had passed before Mr. Carlyle said: “We always consult with one another about the decisions we make, but, to tell you the truth, Jean, my wife, usually likes to defer to my wishes in most matters affecting the household. She seems to be comfortable with my actively taking charge ... and, I do feel that ‘leadership’ is one of my strengths – whether at home, or at work, or in the community.”

The woman conducting the interview opened the folder before her and fingered her way through a few sheets in the folder before arriving at what she was looking for. She picked up the piece of paper, looked at Mr. Carlyle and said: “I understand that five years ago there was some sort of domestic dispute. What can you tell me about that?”

The man paused for just a second, and, then explained: “It was a misunderstanding really. My wife and I had been discussing something – and, quite frankly, I forget what we were even talking about. The discussion got kind of loud and animated, and, at some point, I’m not really sure how it happened, but my wife got in the way of one of my hand motions, and she fell down, knocking over a table lamp in the process.

“Well, some of the neighbors got a little overexcited about all the commotion and phoned the police. However, when the police arrived, the situation was all under control, and my wife gave the police the same account I just gave you.

We – both my wife and I – have gotten much better at handling situations since then. She knows what she has to do, and I know what I have to do to make sure things don’t get out of control ... and, I guess we have been pretty successful because no one has had to call the police since that one incident.” He gave a rueful smile as he said this.

Ms. Anderson’s face remained impassive. She listened but did not react.

Returning to the folder on the desk once more, she rifled through a few more pieces of paper and, then, pulled another sheet from the pile. She studied the material briefly and asked: “What are your economic views?”

The man raised his eyebrows, exhaled through pursed lips, and commented: “Wow, that’s a pretty broad question,” and looked to the woman across from him for further cues. When none were forthcoming, he looked down to the hand resting on the table, examined the fingernails of his right hand for a few seconds, and, then, looked back at Ms. Anderson.

Starting slowly and gradually picking up speed as he went along, he said: “I believe in capitalism. I believe in the profit motive. I believe in the sanctity of private property. I believe in the importance of working hard and using one’s God-given talents to help make the world a better place. I believe that business leaders should be permitted, with minimum interference, to do what they do best ... which is create wealth that can be distributed across communities and nations. I believe that the limited liability corporation is one of the great innovations of modern history and through this invention incredible technological and organizational strides have been taken to help humankind prosper materially and politically.”

Mr. Carlyle was about to go on when Ms. Anderson asked: “Do you believe there is any limit to what can be accomplished through capitalism? Do you believe that, eventually – and sooner rather than later – everyone will be able to share in the wealth?”

“Absolutely” Mr. Carlyle replied.

“So,” Ms. Anderson responded, “you believe that everyone will
achieve the same standard of living as a result of the distribution of wealth made possible through corporations, the captains of industry, as well as via the movements of the invisible hand that guides free markets?”

With a faint hint of annoyance, Mr. Carlyle said: “No, obviously, not everyone will be able to enjoy the same standard of living. The people who put up the capital, the people with the innovative ideas, the individuals who have the organizational skills to put the capital and ideas into a productive format ... these people are entitled to a greater share of the wealth which is created.”

“Why shouldn’t the general workers benefit from all of this as well?” inquired Ms. Anderson.

Initially, the man looked at her like she was asking a question for which the answer was so obvious that it didn’t deserve an answer. Thinking a bit more about the situation, Mr. Carlyle responded simply: “Without capital, an idea, and organization, nothing gets done.”

“Well”, countered the woman, “couldn’t one also say that without workers, nothing gets done either? If you have capital, an idea, and organizational skills, but you have no workers, then, how is the latter less important than the former?”

The man shrugged his shoulders. “Coming up with an idea, raising money to implement that idea, and organizing things so that the idea will come to fruition ... all these things are the catalysts which start the economic engines.”

To which Ms. Anderson responded with: “And workers are the catalysts who help finish things. If you start a process, but can’t finish it, then, how is starting things more important than finishing things?”

The man shot back: “If not for the wages which owners pay workers, the workers would be without food, clothing, and shelter. Owners give workers work.”

Without the slightest trace of rancor in her voice, the woman replied: “Owners don’t give workers anything for which those owners do not receive something in return. More specifically, without the profits that workers help make possible, then, capital, ideas, and organizational skills are worth very little.”

Mr. Carlyle acknowledged the point being made but qualified things with: “Naturally, workers deserve a fair wage for a fair day’s work.”

“How does one calculate what is fair ... either with respect to wages or the work expected for those wages?” Ms. Anderson wondered.

“Law of supply and demand,” the man remarked. He added: “If there is a large supply of labor, then, the price of wages goes down, and if there is not a large labor supply, then, workers are scarce and, as a result, their bargaining position is stronger.”

“What does the law of supply and demand have to do with the issue of fairness concerning wages? Irrespective of how many workers there are, shouldn’t anyone who works be fairly compensated for the work they do?” she inquired.

“Look,” Mr. Carlyle began, “the profit motive and good business practice demands that the owners of a business should try to maximize profits. Consequently, one of the degrees of freedom with which they have to work in order to be able to maximize profits is to play hardball with workers and get the latter to work as economically as possible.

“This is at the heart of the issue of productivity. The more productive the work force is, the more profitable a business tends to be.

“Costs are one of the variables of productivity. If one can cuts costs, then, productivity should be enhanced.”

Ms. Anderson commented: “If I understand the logic of your position, then, if one could, somehow, get workers to work for nothing, then, presumably this would be a sort of paradise for the owner because one would have totally eliminated one source of business costs entirely. I guess the only thing which might be better from the perspective of owners is if they could induce workers, say through taxes, to hand over some of whatever money workers had managed to acquire so that the government could help subsidize those businesses to be more profitable ... at least for someone.”

“You make it sound like owners are engaged in criminal activity or something,” sniffed Mr. Carlyle. “All they are trying to do is earn an honest buck and help others along in life as well.”

Impassively, Ms. Anderson followed up with: “This brings us back to the issue of what exactly is necessary for someone to get along in life. Would you say that helping workers to acquire health care, or to enjoy safe working conditions, or have access to livable retirement packages, or to be free of ecological problems as a result of economic activity ... would you say that all of this is part of fair wages?”

Mr. Carlyle reflected on what had been said for a short period and indicated: “If you undercut profit too much, then, capital, ideas, and organizational skills have no reason to put forth an effort. You have got to reward these elements of the economic equation, or the raison d’etre for such activity disappears.”

“What’s a fair reward for such efforts, Mr. Carlyle? And, how would you differentiate the fairness with respect to this kind of reward from the fair compensation package to which a worker might be entitled?”

With a certain degree of exasperation, Mr. Carlyle replied: “By law, corporations must maximize the profits for the shareholders of a company. So, legally speaking, the first among equals in the apportioning of the economic pie are the shareholders.”

“And what is it that shareholders do exactly? How did they earn this right to have their financial rights protected above that of workers?” asked the woman.

“They supply the money which greases the wheels of industry,” the man remarked.

“Other than in the case of something such as an initial stock offering, this is not entirely true, is it Mr. Carlyle?” mused Ms. Anderson. “I mean, most of what is traded on the stock market is, in reality, just the moving around of money from one stockholder to another rather than the introduction of new cash into the system.”

“Furthermore,” she stated, “people buy stocks at a certain price, and they sell them at a certain price. The people who sell the stocks get to keep the money – minus, of course, the government’s cut of the action through such things as capital gains tax.

“If the price of stocks rise, then, so do the level of dividends to the stockholders as well as the level of returns for those who sell their stocks ... such as CEOs who often get millions of dollars worth of stock options in exchange for helping the price of a company’s stock to increase in value. Incidentally, if the cutting of costs is so important to productivity, then, why don’t companies decrease the salaries and pay-out packages to CEOs and other financial officers?”

“Surely,” he retorted, “you can’t expect such people to work for little or nothing.”

“Why not?” she wondered. “Many corporations and businesses don’t seem to have any problem with this logic when it comes to regular workers.”

“In any event,” she noted, “with certain, limited exceptions, once a company goes public, it acquires the majority of its investment, research, and operating cash through avenues other than the stock market. And, consequently, I’m still trying to figure out the nature of the constructive component that stockholders add to the economic equation other than to make money from the whole process – often at the expense of workers, the community, and the environment? What gives them the right to be first to the feeding troughs”

Mr. Carlyle shook his head slightly in a sort of manner of disbelief. “The stockholders represent one of the ways through which the wealth that is created by industry and commerce is distributed. Everybody has a chance to benefit from this process through engaging in the stock market. When profits grow, so does the wealth which can be distributed among shareholders.”

“Is this wealth distributed evenly among those who are stockholders?” she asked.

“Every share is worth the same as every other share,” he informed her. “The only difference is due to how many shares of any given stock one owns.”

“Wouldn’t this mean that if one had little, or no, money to begin with, then, the egalitarian nature of individual share prices would make little difference to the impoverished?” she offered.

“Some people are better than others in managing their wealth. You can’t fault the system for the failings of individuals. Besides,” he added, little by little more and more people are being encompassed by the spread of wealth.”

“And,” Ms. Anderson queried, “how long before we can anticipate that everyone will be safely ensconced within the protective womb of the egalitarian justice of the invisible hand of the marketplace?”

“Obviously, no one knows,” he answered. “However, corporations and businesses are working night and day to make this time as short as possible. People have to be patient, work hard, and wait for their opportunity. People have to be willing to make sacrifices ... progress demands sacrifice from everyone.”

The woman paused for a moment and said: “Does this mean that the owners, stock-holders, and leaders of the business world are willing to make as many sacrifices as the workers are being asked to make? Are these ‘leaders’ willing to forego the raises, bonuses, retirement stock options, dividends, health benefits, premium parking spaces, and other perks associated with their positions so that the burden of progress is borne by everyone equally? Don’t you think that if the quality of life of the leaders were tied to the quality of life of the poor that advances in economic progress might happen that much more quickly?”

“That is not how the system works,” the man said somewhat wearily.

'The invisible hand of the market must be permitted to operate in accordance with its own principles of distributing goods and services rather than be forced to follow the arbitrary dictates of this or that political or social policy. If left alone, the free market would serve all of our needs.”

“How do we know this would be the case?” asked Ms. Anderson.

“Has there ever been a time in which the markets have been left alone to go where they will and, thereby, proven that what you are saying is true?”

“This is precisely to the point,” Mr. Carlyle said triumphantly.

“The economic and political mess in which we find ourselves is directly due to the manner in which the invisible hand of free enterprise has not been permitted to move society in the direction of greater wealth for all.”

“Really?!?!” Ms. Anderson said partly as an exclamation and partly as a question, and, then, she remarked “If history teaches us anything, isn’t it that when self-interest is permitted to serve itself in a relatively unrestrained fashion, humanity tends to end up with oppression, dictatorship, fascism, and cartels who are not interested in distributing wealth and power but, rather, in monopolizing these commodities to the great disadvantage of the majority and to the considerable benefit of only the few.”

Mr. Carlyle was about to respond when he was cut off. “Before moving on to other topics, I have one last question to ask you in this general area. Let us assume, for the moment, that all you have said about economics is true. Let us further assume that all that is necessary is for time to be extended to the invisible hand of a free enterprise marketplace and, as a result, everyone eventually will be able to join in the prosperity, where are the resources going to come from which is going to permit everyone – all 6-7 billion of us – to have houses, cars, appliances, clothes, luxuries, food, and the like an d to continue to have these things into the indefinite future?”

He shrugged his shoulders. "Obviously, not everyone can have everything they want. The marketplace will determine what is feasible. Moreover, the marketplace will engender the innovations and breakthroughs which are necessary to solve these problems. Whenever there is an opportunity to make profit, well, this is the mother of all invention.”

“If what you say is true,” hypothesized Ms. Anderson, “then, why doesn’t the opportunity to make a profit make inventors and entrepreneurs of us all?”

“God helps those who help themselves,” Mr. Carlyle quipped.

“Are you saying those who are not successful in business don’t try to help themselves?” she inquired.

“Let’s just say,” he responded, “that I have never come across anyone who was willing to make the necessary effort who wasn’t rewarded for the efforts expended. People make their own luck and destinies.”

Ms. Anderson followed up with: “Where does God fit into your vision of things? Does Divinity have nothing to say about who gets what and when?”

“Naturally, God is the ultimate arbiter in these matters. However, I believe that God favors certain individuals and societies over others – that is why some people flourish and others do not, but even among those who are successful, efforts have to be made.”

“How,” she wondered, “do you know that what you call success and flourishing are signs of God’s favor rather than Divine wrath? After all, I have heard it said that when the ego is enhanced, the spirit is diminished? Isn’t it possible that worldly success is merely a prelude to a spiritual fall?

“Not necessarily,” he replied. “God guides those whom Divinity wishes. One can have worldly success as well as success in the next life ... if God wishes. People who are sincere with God ... well, God is sincere with them.”

“How does one know when one is being sincere with God?” she asked.

“God discloses signs to the chosen,” he remarked.

“But, how does one know what constitutes a sign, or, more importantly, what that sign means?” she pressed.

“One has to have faith that one is on the right path,” he said. “If one is, then, understanding the signs is made clear to one’s heart, mind, and soul.”

“Isn’t this somewhat circular reasoning?” she wondered.

“Not if one is right,” he stated.

“And, if one is not right?” she countered.

Mr. Carlyle shrugged his shoulders and said: “I believe in a forgiving God.”

“But what if the choices you make end up hurting other people?” she asked. “Are they required to forgive you as well?”

“I hope they will, but whether, or not, they do, the only thing of importance to me is my relationship with God.”

“But,” she queried, “what if God is not prepared to forgive you for the harm you do to others unless those people are willing to forgive you for what you have done ... then what?”

While Mr. Carlyle was thinking about the matter, Ms. Anderson changed directions slightly. “What do you think about the war on terrorism?”

“It is very necessary,” he replied.

“Why?” she asked.

“For a variety of reasons,” he said, and, then, he began to speak to some of those reasons. “First, it is better to fight terror where it is being bred than in our own country.”

He was about to go on when she interrupted: “It is better for whom and in what sense?”

He quickly responded: “Why, better for the people of this country, of course. Moreover, why should we put our society at risk unnecessarily ... let’s get the job done now so that we do not have to become further entangled in these matters such that our society ends up being as chaotic as some of the places where the terrorists are busy trying to undermine peace and justice.”

“What about the innocent people whose lives are destroyed – physically, emotionally, psychologically, economically, and spiritually in the places where the terrorists are going about their business through the war on terror? Don’t they get to chose how to go about things? Why must they be required to accept our way of handling the problem?

“Yes, it is a shame,” he commented, “that innocent lives are caught up in this war, but whether those people understand it or not, we are fighting for their freedom ... so they can be secure ... so they can improve the quality of their life ... so they can be free from brutal dictatorship.”

She replied with: “Personally, I have difficulty understanding how such people might come to appreciate what you are claiming when they are dead as a result of our actions. Furthermore, even with respect to the ones who are still alive ... they are not free ... they are not secure ... the quality of their life has not improved but deteriorated ... and they have seen one brutal dictatorship go, only for it to be replaced by another.”

“Well,” he retorted, “these things take time and people have to be willing to make sacrifices to win their freedom.”

“What opportunity did we give them to make their own choices with respect to such sacrifices before we imposed our final solution upon them? How do you get a people to choose to be free when the methodology that is used to accomplish this is one of force and oppression ... how does democracy get engendered through tyranny? Why are we so willing to sacrifice their life to protect our own?

“If the situation were reversed, do you really think that people in this country would appreciate the fact that some army from another country invaded us, killed thousands of innocent people, maimed untold thousands more individuals, destroyed our infrastructure, ruined our economy and our communities, imprisoned our people on mere suspicion, tortured us, humiliated us, and put into power a puppet government that they could control, and, yet, they said the reason they were doing all of this was for our own good and that we must be prepared to make sacrifices ... do you really think that people here would say: ‘Hey, what a great idea. Thanks’?

“Look,” he responded, “I understand what you are saying. I really do, but, sometimes, with greatness goes great responsibility. Leadership must be permitted to lead so that the vision of such leadership can be realized. I hate to sound so trite, but there is a real truth in the fact that in order to make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs.”

“But,” she inquired, “what if the rest of the world doesn’t want an omelette? What if they don’t want to break any eggs? What if they don’t like the way we make omelettes?”

He shook his head in a dismissive manner. “This is where leadership and the vision of leadership come in. The great leaders always lead people where they need to go even if the people don’t want to go to where they are being led.”

“How do we know where people need to go?” she asked

“Well, that’s the issue isn’t it?” he remarked. “People of vision know, and the generality of humankind does not, so, sometimes, the former have to kick the latter in the rear end to get these people moving in the right direction.”

“Are you certain of this?” she challenged.

“As certain as I am that I am sitting in front of you.” he responded.

She followed up with: “Of course, you do realize that people who are delusional and/or suffering from various kinds of mental disorder tend to feel, believe, and understand that what they claim to be true is just as true as what you believe to be the case about marriage, economics, religion, and terrorism.”

“Are you saying that I am delusional or insane?” he asked.

“That’s not my call,” she indicated. “My job is to evaluate you with respect to your possible suitability for a given position. And I believe that I now have enough information on which to make a decision concerning you. So, if you will return to the reception area, there are a few administrative items which I have to clear, and, you will be notified shortly about the decision.”

She rose, invited Mr. Carlyle to do the same, escorted him through the door, down the hallway and to the passageway leading to the reception area. She said good-bye and thanked him for being candid during the interview.

She returned to Room ‘C’, sat down, and began to write: “Mr. Carlyle has tendencies toward abusive behavior and, as well, is inclined toward being controlling of others. He is delusional, possibly a sociopath. In addition, he is a true believer in the phenomenon of leadership, rather dogmatic about many things, presumptuous, somewhat ethically challenged, and willing to sacrifice others to further his own beliefs. Finally, he has great difficulty seeing events from any perspective but his own. I believe he will make an excellent candidate for the job opening that exists in the terrorist organization which contacted you recently. I believe he has all of the qualities necessary for a first-rate terrorist.”

After re-reading what she had just written, she gathered together the papers scattered about on top of the table, stacked them neatly together, placed her assessment on top of this pile, and, then, she closed the file on Mr. Anthony Carlyle.

Another job completed. Productivity was on the rise, and if things kept going this way, the stockholders would be very happy when dividends were declared in the next quarter.