GOD

This article is not trying to prove anything. I’m hoping it will be viewed by the reader as a sincere attempt to seek the truth, free from all impairments of prejudice, beliefs, sentiment or ideology. My main motivation in writing this article was to get better understanding of many concepts that were, and still are, the subject of intense debate, at least in some circles. Like many people, I often get preoccupied with eternal questions like the purpose of my existence, my own mortality, the purpose of life, and of course the biggest mystery of all, the existence and role of a supreme being that govern all aspects of the known universe, otherwise known as GOD.

While some people claim to have answers to those questions – and let’s call this group “religious” folks – another group – let’s call them “atheists” – claims to have scientific proof of the erroneous answers given by the first group, but in the meantime fails to provide complete answers to said questions, and in the ongoing battle, the truth is usually lost as both sides try to use all weapons they can put their hands on in a ferocious attempt to prove their point of view regardless of where the truth really lies.

It’s much easier for us to tolerate minor differences in opinion rather than major ones. Take a white projection screen for example. If I asked you to point out the red regions in a projected image, we may disagree on what you pointed to is actually red or dark orange, and that seems acceptable, but if I asked you to point out the black regions and then claimed what you pointed to is white, then obviously one of us is in desperate need of new glasses.

Only when it is revealed that what we perceive as “black” on a projection screen is simply unlit (white) areas where the contrast between those areas and surrounding colors tricks our eyes into believing that these areas are actually black[1], maybe then we can understand and accept our different points of view.

Although a mere optical illusion, this example illustrates a crucial point for this discussion; that just because we strongly believe in something, it doesn't necessarily mean it’s absolutely true. Furthermore, it would be almost impossible to find the truth unless we’re willing to challenge what we believe in and entertain points of view that may well contradict this belief.

In conflicts, there’s seldom a clear black and white contrast between right and wrong, unless of course you happen to be one of the parties involved. To an outsider, there’s almost always some truth to both sides of a story; there’s rarely a clear and definitive answer to who’s right and who’s wrong, and the longer the conflict drags on, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between fact and myth and both black and white will exceedingly appear more blurred until everything eventually looks very grey.

Humans are emotional creatures. Whether we like it or not, our emotions play a major role in our decision making, and while some would argue that this is what makes our lives so rich and colorful, it can’t be denied that it is also one of the main sources that fuel conflicts, for if everyone let emotions aside and acted purely logical and reasonable, there would be no reason for conflicts in the first place.

This prologue was essential to explain why in conflicts[2] we passionately defend our point of view: not just because we believe in it, but perhaps more importantly because we are so overruled by our emotions that we can’t objectively look at the conflict from unbiased perspective, especially one that could prove us wrong. Simply put, we’re not generally driven to seek the truth but rather to prove we are right regardless of the truth. And whether our motive is a moral cause, a deep rooted belief or unshaken faith in something or someone, it always skips our notice that it is our emotions that’s driving us, not the universal and absolute righteousness of whatever it is we believe in. Nowhere else could this be seen more clearly than in religious debate. Take the evolution versus intelligent-design debate for example[3].

Intelligent design proponents fiercely oppose natural selection as an explanation for the origin of life. While the theory of evolution has almost universal acceptance in the scientific community, some religious circles find the process of natural selection to be in direct conflict with the existence of an entity that sparked and designed, if not the universe itself, then at least the process that led to its creation as we know it today; an idea that has its origins deeply rooted in Abrahamic religions.

Some atheist scientists, on the other hand, use mathematics, statistics, biology, and the laws of physics to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entity, which by its very definition is non-physical, does not (or cannot) physically exist.

Now one of the two groups must be wrong, but did anyone really take a step back and stopped for a moment to think where the truth really is without trying to prove either side right or wrong? Of course not. The religious will typically try to look for flaws in any scientific theory that contradict his beliefs, while applauding any theory that confirms it. On the other hand, the atheist will search religious text trying to find contradictions, historical errors, or concepts that do not agree with scientific theories or observation. You won’t find a religious person trying to prove religious text wrong or an atheist trying to prove that GOD exist, no, that would be counterproductive. This is expected though, for if we strongly believe in something, we will naturally try to concentrate on the shortcomings of any opposing idea, completely ignoring its merits. As we shall see, as in any conflict, there could be some truth to both sides of the story.

The following discussion is mostly philosophical; however, it may still use scientific evidence and historic facts as tools. Logic will be used only when everything else fails. No assumptions will be made unless scientific evidence/observation and/or known historical facts can’t provide a reasonable explanation while in the meantime do not disagree with such assumptions. No reference to religious text will be made either. Religion essentially lies in the realm of faith, and faith, by definition, transcends everything else thus making any discussion a moot point.

Part 1: The Absolute Origin

If you look at the world around you, what do you see? If you touch anything with your hand, what do you feel? In the broadest sense, whatever you see or feel is matter. It is countless number of atoms and particles that occupy a portion of space. According to the currently prevailing scientific theory, all matter in the universe came into being about 14 billion years ago in what is known as the Big Bang: A huge explosion-expansion from an extremely dense and hot state that created all matter in the still-expanding universe as we know it today. The Big Bang theory is supported by observation and is widely accepted in the scientific community, but the validity of the theory is not really what concerns us here. If the theory is indeed true; it follows that whatever happened before the Big Bang essentially lies outside the scope of our knowledge. The extreme physical conditions at the big bang break all laws of physics, rendering any attempt to examine prior states nearly impossible[4]. This phenomenon is known in physics as a “singularity”.

Assuming we don’t annihilate ourselves in the near or far future, it’s likely that our quest for knowledge will continue for generations to come, and maybe one day in the distant future we’ll find answers to the currently unanswerable questions, like what was there before the big bang or what happens when you go through a black hole[5]. But regardless if we find the answers or not, one thing will remain certain: whatever was there before the big bang, it can either be something or nothing at all. That is to say, there could be either something physical, be it another universe or a multiverse or eternal expansion-contraction of our own universe or another reality however different from our own, etc. or absolutely nothing that we can probe, measure or determine. And since we’re in the business of scientifically finding out where everything came from, it is safe to say that whatever it is we find as our primordial origin, if we ever do find it, and however recursive the process may prove to be, we will almost always end up with something that physically exist. That is, it will be something measurable; i.e., matter, energy, time or space. The problem with our origin as being any state of physical existence is that it will automatically raise the question about where it came from. And no matter what we try, we’ll always end up with a big-bang-like scenario, where the previous state can either be indefinitely indeterminate or be another physical existence that originated at yet another singularity-like event[6]. Assuming we can trace our origin to as far back in time as we like, there can be only two outcomes of this process: either we end up in a state where the concept of a “prior” state becomes meaningless[7], or we reach an event where we can no longer find out what was there before that event.

Either way, there can be no answer to the question about where physical existence came from. If and when we do reach the cul-de-sac of physical existence, it’s safe to say that whatever may be there, it can’t be physical (i.e., measurable), for if it was, it will have had to come from somewhere and hence it wouldn't be the origin.

To put it differently, the notion of origin is only relevant to our physical existence because that's how we experience the physical world around us. There simply isn’t anything in the physical realm that exist without time being an integral part of its very fabric and as such, an absolute origin, inherently time-oriented, is impossible in the physical realm. One solution to this problem is to assume time itself has an origin. i.e., that time is a property specific to our physical world, and like anything else, it has a starting point. If there exist a state where time is not a property of this state, then the concept of an “origin”, a “prior state” or “forever” will automatically seize to exist and our origin will become the point at which time itself started to exist. Of course if time is missing, there’s a good chance other attributes of our physical reality will be missing as well, most notably space.

Now the alternative to any form of physical existence (matter, energy, time, space, the big bang, black holes, a singularity or pretty much anything) is simply incomprehensible. Think about it for a second. Try to construct an image in your head for what it would be like. If nothing at all existed, what would there be? Certainly not space, because even space, exist. It has dimensions, even if infinite. This non-existence must have no dimensions and no time. It can’t be anything that we can imagine or measure in physical terms. It can only be described as a complete lack of matter, energy, time and space, in other words, it doesn't physically exist.

Now since we logically know that existence[8] can’t possibly have a physical[9] origin (i.e., the origin can’t be a point where the prior state is a physical state) then the origin, it follows, must be non-physical. There must have been at one point or another, even in infinity, a state of non-existence, where nothing physical existed, and at that point existence came into, well, existence. The idea that matter came from nowhere is rather odd, but there isn't any explanation, scientific or logical, for where matter originally came from[10]. Furthermore, there’s only logical explanation for where matter can’t originate from. That doesn't leave us many choices, and since this is the case, I can only assume that this state of non-existence caused existence to come into being. Obviously, this assumption is based on exclusion, and you may disagree with it, but I couldn't find a better hypothesis. Assuming that matter/energy was created from a non-existence state, by the non-existence state in terms that are, obviously, beyond our physical understanding of the universe is more plausible to me than to assume that matter simply forever existed or to just leave the question terminally open ended.

It is worth noting at this point that the above conclusion is by no means a proof that such state is real. Logical reasoning does not guarantee any conclusion to be absolutely true, it merely assigns it a better than random (i.e, better than 50%) chance of being true. How much better? Well, that's entirely up to you to decide.

---

[1] You can easily verify this by watching a movie in a bright room where the movie doesn't fill the entire projection screen (e.g., when the movie and the screen have different aspect ratios so that black rectangular borders are displayed either on top/bottom or left/right of the projected image). When you’re watching the movie, you’ll perceive the borders as black, but if you concentrate only on the borders, you’ll discover they’re actually white.

[2] By conflict I mean a difference in opinion without any empirical evidence that support either side.

[3] This is a conflict in the sense that neither side can prove (with evidence) that a creator exist or doesn't exist.

[4] At our current state of knowledge.

[5] A black hole is an enormous star that collapsed on itself, generating so much gravitational pull that even its own light cannot escape, thus appearing as a black object. The physical conditions at the center of a black hole are so extreme that it creates a singularity.

[6] Singularity here refers to the point where the laws governing the state of this existence can’t be used at that specific point to determine any prior state.

[7] The concept of a “prior” state is essentially time-centric and is relevant only in realities where “past” and “future” events are bound to a linear time scale as we experience it. If, however, there exist a reality where time wraps around in an endless loop, then trying to find an origin as the earliest point in time becomes meaningless exactly like trying to find the starting point on a circle. However such reality, if it exists, doesn't mean it didn't have a prior state, in the same way as watching a seamlessly looping video clip of say, a sine wave: The starting point of the clip may be indeterminate for someone inside the clip, but the creation of the clip itself and its playback are bound to a known, different, time scale.

[8] By “existence” I mean any measurable or describable feature in our universe or in any other universe or reality at this time or any time in the past or in the future. An idea, although not a measurable quantity, still has physical existence in the neurotransmitters of someone’s brain even if what the idea represents does not belong to the physical realm, but this literal understanding of the word “existence” is not really what I’m after. If you think of existence as the alternative state to non-existence, then an idea, or anything else for that matter, must be part of existence simply because it can’t be part of non-existence. In other words, an idea exist because it happens.

[9] That is, of matter, energy, time or space characteristics in our universe or any other characteristics in an alternative universe.

[10] Based on scientific theory, matter in our universe came into being when matter/anti-matter particles were created at the early stages of the big bang with the ratio of matter slightly higher than anti-matter (matter and anti-matter particles annihilate each other when they collide). This, however, doesn't explain where the energy at the big bang came from.

Open letter to the president

This is a translation of the following article:
 هذه ترجمه لمقال على جريده الشروق على الرابط التالى:

http://www.shorouknews.com/mobile/columns/view.aspx?cdate=30122012&id=2d0b551b-0792-49dc-a586-7fba4dea5241

Ayman Al Sayyad

Former senior advisor to the ousted Egyptian president Mohammed Morsy

Al Sherouk Newspaper

Sunday December 30^th, 2012

This letter dates back to more than three full weeks, on the eve of when I - with a number of my colleagues - made a decision to announce that there’s 'no benefit' in continuing to be on the advisory committee for the presidency. But being aware of the “sensitivity of the current situation”, I preferred not to send it for publication at the time, waiting for the 'hustle and bustle' of the referendum on the new constitution to expire, along with all the slander, hostility, and non-reasonability that came with it. Although I promised those responsible for this newspaper that I give them the letter at the time, they respected my motives to postpone its publication.

Mr. President,

For several understandable reasons, I hesitated much before writing you this letter. It was not my intention at the outset for it to be open, but much have happened since then, and in any case, you have already heard everything in it from me before either in closed or general meetings inside the presidential palace. As things are what they are right now, and because "honesty is salvation", and transparency is the basis of democracy, and because the current developments - in any case - have unfortunately surpassed everything in this letter, then perhaps you will allow me to address it to you, and that it would be "open".

Mr. President,

We will not go into details an open letter is definitely not the place for. What matters in the end are the results, and what we are seeing now, which probably is no secret to anyone, is more polarization and more damage to the popularity of a president we chose to stand beside and support in the face of a regime we did not want back.

As we acknowledge that we have failed, for reasons that are understandable and clear, to bridge a gap that is widening day after day between the clan of the president and their supporters on the one hand and various segments of our nation, political and religious, on the other hand, we find that there’s no point for us to continue on the advisory committee.

As we recognize, along with everyone else, the reasons for this sharp polarization striking the very core of our nation and threatening its unity, we unfortunately feel that this matter is not taken seriously in the decision-making circles and we also don't feel any sincere interest in helping us treat the culprit we see as not only striking the revolution of "all the people" in its very essence, but also striking the unity of the nation in its core. It’s a danger if we failed, regardless of the reasons, to fight, then we at least must have the courage to admit failure, which we are certain you know its reasons, especially that we have pointed it out more than once, stressing its seriousness more than once.

We advocated dialogue; we wanted it to be real and effective. But it did not work for 'systematic' reasons that were clear even if we ignored them. What counts always lies in the realities of things regardless of the names we call them.

We said that we know that there definitely are plots targeting this country and targeting its revolution. This is expected for a country of this size and this stature. But we also know from the basics of politics that the first thing we should be mindful of when facing such conspiracies or challenges is the "unity of the internal front". This is the very thing we ignored day after day, and the details here are too many and too ancient.

Mr. President,

Because you know us, I trust that you also know that our act was not - as some like to portray it - a bias for one camp against another, but rather an original refusal for the idea that this country will be eventually divided to two camps, and the disaster here is that this division will be over identity.

There’s richness in diversity. That’s what we know. But division is the first step in the road to what we don’t like and what we don’t accept.

Our single and only aim was to bring Egypt back to the genius moment of its true unity on the eve of the eleventh of February 2011, the day I heard with my very ears Egyptian Christians chanting Muslim prayers behind Sheikh Mohammed Gibreel. Today I hear them scrambling for an exit visa with no return.

Mr. President,

I wrote the first line in this letter the day "the president of Egypt" was speaking, not to all of his people, but rather to a group we "appreciated" as one of the many groups of this nation, a group mobilized to support him at the doorsteps of a palace we aspired to be a palace for all of "the people" and not for just one group regardless of how much appreciation we have for this group or its history.

I wrote the second line in this letter the day this "group" called – in a dispute that should have remained political – for a million man’s march to support "God's law and the legitimacy of the President". This obvious link was not something that could be tolerated by my faith as I understand it.

And I wrote the last line in this letter the day I failed, along with my colleagues, to persuade the “group” to refrain from sending its youth to where there could be a chance for bloodshed and loss of life, a loss we ​​know full well that the demolition of the stones of Kaaba - and not the palace - is a lesser evil to God than to cause it.

Mr. President,

I stood beside you and beside your group during moments which you know, and they know, how critical they were. And that was nothing but a refusal for an "exclusion" which you seemed to be experiencing, and in defense of the "right of the other" and in defense of democracy as I understand it and "liberalism", which only yesterday I heard those who demonize it. This was public, explicit and clear. Because positions are fixed and principles are indivisible, I stand here today as well - if only on the other side of the river - rejecting exclusion, which some fancy possible in a country with a civilization firmly rooted in the depth of history. It may even seems strange that this was a result of worrying about a "project" I am afraid that being over-zealous by some, may steer it off course.

No one disputes the legitimacy of the ballot box. That’s not what we object. But for matters to be portrayed as a vote on the law of God - after being linked to the legitimacy of the President – was not, as I’m sure you agree, something that should have been done regardless of ballot box alliances and calculations. And to portray objecting the decisions of the president, no matter what it was, as objecting the laws of God is an enormous transcendence of boundaries especially when among those who objected some of the president's decisions (in addition to his deputy who clearly stated his dissatisfaction with the constitutional declaration which introduced us to this crisis, as well as to the law called the Revolution Protection Act) were names like Tariq Al Bishry, Noha Zeiny and Abdel Moneim Abou El Fotouh … and many others. Also among those who withdrew from the Advisory Committee of the Constituent Assembly names like Ahmed Kamal Abou El Magd, Heba Raouf, Salah Ezz … God does not commend anyone. But putting things in perspective remains a duty when it looks like the "euphoria of the ballot box" has distorted for some – at the time – what was fairly and squarely ought to be said and what was wisely and reasonably out to be done.

I stand here sure that you stand with me against what I see today as features of religious fascism, the same way I stood with you month ago against what appeared to be signs of military fascism.

Mr. President,

Equitably, everyone’s wrong, I do not exclude anyone. Though if to be fair we have to point to the inroad of some of the statements made by some of the symbols assumed on the opposition, then I know, at least by virtue of my profession, that this is the nature of the opposition anywhere in the world and that the responsibility of a ship's captain, be it a person or group, is always greater than the responsibility of its passengers. We were among those who have always said that the “real” opposition should not be seen as confined to particular political characters but in reality would be rather embodied in the wide concerned street and in youth seeing the blood of their comrades spilled in vain, which is not why they started their revolution. Those pure youth of this nation, the young men and women who were at the vanguard of this revolution, hand in hand, not occupied with political or religious affiliation or ballot boxes or past vendettas.

But I wish that you - and I know you listen well - ask some of those you trust the sincerity of their advice: Why do we each day lose a number of those who, one day, supported us, whether at the ‘Fairmont’ or elsewhere?

Mr. President,

I have always maintained that the Brotherhood with its long history, like the Egyptian Coptic Church, is an asset of this nation; we all lose if we lost it. And now I'm afraid to say that we probably took our first steps in the road to this loss.

And I have always voiced, and stressed in our last meeting, my concern that next to the brotherhood there exist those who may drag it somewhere they can’t afford to be, not only in Egypt, but in the entire region. This however can be a long discussion.

And I have always said that what the brotherhood needs most today, after emerging from the darkness of 'prohibited' to the light of 'governance', is a sincere and fair opposition.

Mr. President,

I am not a politician and I did not one day belong to a party or a group and I have never held a government job, big or small, in my entire life. And you know that I declined – despite the insistency – your kind offer of a ministerial position in the cabinet. And I explained, thankful and appreciative, that I’m not the right person for such post. I’m merely someone with ideals who can at times be right or wrong, but whose value remains in his independence and freedom, and the correspondence exchanged between me and your team, as well as all "archives" or recordings of interviews conducted with me, are witness to how much I tried to make the main task of this advisory committee to aid in the fulfillment of the conditions of "democratic transition", or as politics books calls it, Transitional Justice, which, as reading history and learning from the experiences of other nations going through similar circumstances teaches us, is the only way to succeed in this transitional state. Despite what seemed – at the time – that things weren't exactly going in that direction, I still decided to be involved, in an attempt to achieve two goals: first, to find a way to get Egyptians back to unity, and I admit that I have failed in that, and the second is to defend the freedom of expression and the media as indispensable tools for the progress of nations. And perhaps some of the honorable gentlemen who attended our meetings remember that I have always said to those who were annoyed by incidents of overstepping boundaries here and there that "the problems of freedom and democracy can only be resolved by more freedom and more democracy". And now that I’m distant from the decision making circles for this project, and I see in the distance what some are planning and scheming, I allow myself to advise you to take good care of the freedom of expression and the media.

Mr. President,

I’m departing with goodwill and respect to you and to some friends in your group. But you know that I can’t be hypocritical or disingenuous. Unfortunately I started to feel that staying close to you might be seen as hypocrisy or hold the suspicion of deceiving myself and the public, and I know you wouldn't like for me to be either.

We always believed in the democracy of "open windows" not closed doors, and we think that "personalization" is a disease of Arab thought, and we are prudent for Malik’s (RIP) word: "everyone gets taken from and is given back…". I always appreciated your patience and that you were never annoyed when I repeated in front of you what I was saying outside the palace, you were even encouraging me to do so. As well I won’t forget what you have said in your first speech, citing Abu Bakr, … So we have listened, so I have done.

Then when I sense that the danger is coming, threatening the nation, even some see it threatening the group; I can only pray that I’m mistaken.

Social Media And The Freedom Of Misinformation - التواصل الاجتماعي وحرية التضليل

Original English article follows

أي مراقب محايد للأحداث الحالية في مصر، وخاصة في الفضاء الإلكتروني، من المرجح أن يذهل من الحجم الهائل لكمية المعلومات المتبادلة بين الأطراف المعنية. بالتأكيد أن الانقسام العميق في الشارع المصري، ومنذ فترة طويلة، كان واضحاً للجميع، ولكن في زمن توافرت فيه أدوات قوية للتواصل الاجتماعي تحت تصرف أي شخص تقريبا، تحول المشهد في الفضاء الإلكتروني من مجرد إختلاف سياسي إلى ما يشبه حربا صليبية مقدسة.

 شارك بصورة لقناصة الجيش القتلة مع أصدقائك على الفيسبوك، عبر عن رأيك في حكم جماعة الإخوان المسلمين الفاشية في تغريدة على تويتر أو إنشر مقطع فيديو يظهر وحشية خصمك على يوتيوب وخلال ساعات سوف يتولى مئات الآلاف من الأصدقاء المخلصين أو الأتباع أو الأنصار نشر الدليل الدامغ الذي يثبت أنهم هم الصالحين وأن الجانب الآخر هو الطالح.

الأمثلة على ذلك لا تحصى، والموضوع لايحتاج إلى خبير ليدرك مدى سخف المشهد. حالة معينة بالتحديد كانت تبعث على السخرية والالم معاً تضمنت مقطع فيديو نشر بضراوة علي الفيسبوك يظهر فيه أحد المدنيين، وسط بعض الجماهير الغاضبة، وهو يسقط على الارض بتأثير مايبدو أنه طلق ناري من مصدر غير معروف، على المفترض خلال الاحتجاجات الأخيرة أمام الحرس الجمهوري. المفارقة هنا هي أن نفس الفيديو بالضبط نشر من كلا الجانبين، باعتباره دليلا قاطعا على وحشية الجيش من جانب والمؤامرة ضد الجيش من الجانب الآخر! قراءة التعليقات على الفيديو أظهرت أشياء كثيرة، ليس أقلها هو أن كل معسكر يعتبر وجهة نظره إيمان راسخ لا يتزعزع وهو مهيا نفسيا لتقبل ونشر أي مواد تثبت وجهة نظره بغض النظر عن صحتها، منطقيتها أو حتى إمكانية حدوثها في المقام الأول بينما في نفس الوقت يمنع أو يتجاهل أو يثير الشكوك حول أي مادة تثبت خلاف ذلك. فانت ترى مقالا أو مقطع فيديو أو بعض الأخبار وعلى الفور إما ان تنقلها، أو إذا لم تكن تساعد قضيتك، تتجاهلها تماما أو تحاول العثور على أي وسيلة لتشويهها وطمسها. فقبل كل شيء، إذا كانت هذه الأخبار صحيحه، فستكون أنت على الجانب الخطأ، أليس كذلك؟

وسائل الإعلام، من جانبها، أسهمت بنصيبها العادل في تحويل الوضع من سيئ إلى أسوأ  عن طريق المحاولات الدؤوبة لتشويه صورة خصومهم مهما كان الثمن وبأية وسيلة ممكنة. فنشرت الصور ومقاطع الفيديو وسربت اخبار لم تكن في معظمها دقيقة، وفي أحسن الأحوال محوره، لتحريض مؤيديهم. ليس من الصعب، على سبيل المثال، أن تجري بحثاً عكسياً على صورة في مقال لتكتشف أن الصورة تم نشرها على الانترنت منذ عدة أيام، وفي بعض الحالات أسابيع، قبل وقوع الحادث المذكور.

ليس من المستغرب إذاً انعدام الثقة العميق الذي تولد بين الجانبين وامتد حتى إلى وسائل الإعلام الدولية لدرجة إتهام بعض القنوات الإخبارية العالميه - من الجانبين وفي نفس الوقت - بمحاباة طرف على حساب الطرف الأخر ! فعندما يظهر جانب صورة لشخص ما يصاب في مظاهره، يرفض الطرف الأخر الصورة تلقائيا على اساس انها فوتوشوب. وإذا نشر طرف مقطع فيديو يظهر أعمال العنف التي يرتكبها الطرف الآخر، فمن المؤكد أن يكون قديما أو تم التلاعب به. ايضا فان كل الأخبار القادمة من مصادر ينظر إليها على أنها معادية لابد أن تكون مغرضه أو ملفقة. باختصار، يبدو أن الجميع لايسمع إلا ما يريد أن يسمع ولايرى إلا ما يريد أن يرى.

على المستوى الشخصي، كان لي تجربة مباشرة مع عقلية كلا من المعسكرين. ففي محاولة لإقناع شخص من المعسكر المؤيد لمرسي بأن النسبة بين أنصار مرسي ومعارضيه تميل الى الجانب المعارض (على أساس استطلاع رأى على الفيسبوك شارك فيه نحو 1.2 مليون شخص من قبل قناة إخبارية تحظى باحترام واسع)  كان رد فعله على الفور أن معظم معارضوا مرسي لديهم اكثر من حساب على الفيسبوك وهذا يفسر لماذا يحصلون على المزيد من الأصوات. عندما حاولت إقناع شخص من المعسكر المناهض لمرسي ​​أن النسبة بين الجانبين ليست كبيرة بقدر ما يود أن يعتقد، استشهد بنفس السبب بالضبط! ما رفض كلا من الطرفين قبوله هو أنه في أي استطلاع رأى يوجد نسبة من الخطأ، وأنه إذا أستغل احد الجوانب النظام باستخدام حسابات متعددة، فالاحتمال الأكبر أن الجانب الآخر فعل نفس الشئ بالضبط. عندما قدمت هذه الحجة، أصر كلاهما على أن الجانب الآخر لديه نسبة أعلى من الحسابات المتعددة!  لم يكن يمكن أن أجادل مع هذا المنطق.

مثال آخر واضح على تضليل وخطأ معلومات المشاركين في المعركة الجارية هو تقدير حجم الاحتجاجات في الميادين المختلفة في جميع أنحاء مصر قبل، وأثناء، وبعد 30 يونيو. بعض الناس من المعسكر المناهض لمرسي ​​يقسم أن حجم التظاهرات وصل إلى 17 مليون (البعض يقول 33) شخص في جميع أنحاء مصر، في حين ادعى موقع الاخوان المسلمين الرسمي أن أكثر من 3 ملايين شخص تجمعوا في رابعة العدوية بينما رفعت بعض القنوات الإسلامية هذا العدد إلى 4 ملايين. وفي الوقت نفسه، كشف عن وجود تغريدة من السيد نجيب ساويرس أن بي بي سي أعلنت أن "عدد الأشخاص الذين يحتجون اليوم هو أكبر تجمع في حدث سياسي في تاريخ البشرية."

كما اكتشفت فيما بعد، فان الجدال مع أي شخص من أي من المعسكرين عن صحة تلك الأرقام كان بلا جدوى. هذه الأرقام تم نقلها وتداولها على أنها وحي إلهي لا يمكن أن يخضع للفحص. بطرح الخيال جانبا، يمكن لأي شخص لديه ذرة من العقل فتح برنامج Google Earth، واستخدام أيقونة "المسطرة" لقياس مساحه المنطقة التي حدثت فيها المظاهرات. بافتراض متوسط الكثافة القصوى حوالى 4 أشخاص للمتر المربع، يمكنك الحصول على تقدير تقريبي لعدد المتواجدين. ففي رابعة العدوية، وعلى افتراض أن طريق النصر. كانت ملئ من يوسف عباس إلى احمد تيسير، مسافة 1 كم كامل، وبإضافة مسافة مماثلة في منطقة شارع الطيران، يعطينا بين 320،000 و 400،000 متظاهر، حسب دقة قياساتك. رقم بعيد كل البعد عن ال 4 أو حتى 3 ملايين من الأشخاص المزعومين.

ميدان التحرير من الناحية الأخرى، بما في ذلك جميع الشوارع المؤدية إليه، لم يحقق نتائج أفضل بكثير، فقط بين 400،000 و 600،000 شخص، مرة أخرى، حسب دقة قياساتك. الآن وعلى افتراض أن 700،000 شخص كانو موجودين في ميدان التحريروقصر الاتحادية، وحيث أن القاهرة تحتوي على ما يزيد قليلا عن 20٪ من إجمالي سكان مصر، فهذا يعطينا حوالي 3.5 مليون شخص، على الأكثر، يحتجون في جميع أنحاء مصر. العدد الحقيقي، في رأيي المتواضع، كان أقل بكثير، حيث أن  نسبة المحتجين في المحافظات الأخرى كان أصغر بكثير مقارنة بالقاهرة (كما يرى من لقطات التلفزيون)، باستثناءات قليلة.

أما بالنسبة لتغريدة السيد ساويرس، فلم يمكنني العثور على مصدر واحد يؤكد ادعاءه العظيم، سواء من BCC أو خلاف ذلك. ومع ذلك، فإن الأرقام والتغريدة انتشرت على مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي مثل النار في الهشيم.

يبدو لي أنه في ظل المناخ الحالي من الانقسام والارتباك السياسي الذي يعيي مصر، أن أصوات العقل والحكمة والمصالحة الوطنية قد فقدت لأولئك الذين يروجون للكراهية والإقصاء والانتقام، من كلا الجانبين. وبدلا من التحليل الموضوعي وبذل جهد حقيقي لإيجاد أرضية مشتركة، إنغمس الجميع في سيل من الاتهامات والتحريض والمؤامرات. من المفهوم أن السلطة الحاكمة، وليس المعارضة، هي المسؤول الأول والاخير عن سلامة ورفاهية الأمة. وإذا كان الرئيس السابق مرسي هو المسؤول عن الفرقة التي سادت الشارع السياسي المصري، فانها حتماً مسؤولية القيادة الحالية وليس الاخوان المسلمين أن ترئب هذا الصدع. إذا لم يحدث ذلك، فأننا من المحتمل أن نعاني ولفترة ممتدة من نزاع مرير طويل الأجل.

Any neutral observer to the current events in Egypt, especially in cyberspace, is likely to be astonished by the sheer volume of traffic exchanged between the parties involved. Surely the deep divide in the Egyptian street is, and for a long time was, evident to everyone, but at a time when powerful tools for social communication are at the disposal of virtually everyone, the political cyberspace landscape was transformed from one of mere political divide to what closely resembles a holy crusade. Share a photo of murderous army snipers with your friends on Facebook, express your opinion in the fascist rule of Muslim brotherhood in a tweet or post a video showing your opponent’s brutality on Youtube and within hours hundreds of thousands of loyal friends or followers or supporters will be relaying the overwhelming evidence that proves they are the righteous while the other side is the wicked.

The examples are countless and it doesn’t need an expert to realize how silly the scene is. One case in particular was especially ironic involving a video clip propagated frivolously on Facebook showing a civilian, amidst some angry crowd, falling to the ground from what appears to be gunshots from an unknown source, allegedly, during the protests at the republican guard. The irony here is that the exact same video was spread by both sides, as a conclusive evidence of army brutality by one side and a conspiracy against the army by the other! Reading the comments on the video showed many things, not the least of which is how every camp considers its point of view a matter of unshakeable faith and is psychologically prepared to believe and distribute any material that proves its point of view regardless of its validity, logicality or even the possibility of it happening in the first place while at the same time block, ignore or raise suspicion about any material that proves otherwise. You see an article or a video clip or a bit of news and you either immediately spread it, or, if it doesn’t further your cause, completely ignore it or try to find any way to discredit it. After all, if it is true, you will be on the wrong side, wouldn’t you?

The media, on its part, contributed its fair share in making a bad situation worse by relentless attempts to demonize their opponents at all costs and by any means possible. They posted pictures and videos and spread news that for the most part were inaccurate, and at best manipulated, to incite their supporters. It’s not uncommon, for example, to do a reverse image search on a picture in an article only to discover that the image was posted online days, and in some cases weeks, before the reported incident took place.

Not surprising then the deep distrust the ensued between the two sides and extended even to international media. Very much so indeed to the point that some international news channels are accused by both sides for supporting the other! And that when one side shows a picture of someone hurt in a protest, it’s automatically dismissed as being Photoshop’d. If they post a video showing acts of violence committed by the other party, it must be old or manipulated and all news coming from sources perceived as hostile must be mischievous or fabricated. To sum it up, it seems that everyone only hear what they want to hear and only see what they want to see.

On a personal level, I had a first-hand experience with the mindset of both camps. In an effort to convince someone from the pro Morsi camp that the ratio between pro and anti Morsi supporters is leaning towards the anti-Morsi side (based on a popular Facebook poll of about 1.2 million participants by a well-respected news channel) his immediate reaction was that the anti-Morsi supporters have multiple Facebook accounts and that explains why they have more votes. When I tried to convince someone from the Anti-Morsi camp that the ratio between the two sides is not as big as they would like to think, he cited the exact same reason! What both parties refused to accept is that in any poll there will be a margin of error, and if one side abused the system by using multiple accounts, chances are, the other side did exactly the same. Presented with this argument, they both insisted that the other side have a higher percentage of multiple accounts! I couldn’t argue with such logic.

Another clear example of the grossly misguided and misinformed participants of the ongoing battle is the size of protests in various squares across Egypt before, during, and after June 30^th. People from the anti-Morsi camp swear that as high as 17 million protesters (some say 33) across Egypt took to the streets, while the official MB website claimed that more than 3 million gathered at Rabaa Al Adaweya with some Islamic channels raising this number to 4 million. Meanwhile, a tweet from Mr. Naguib Sawiris revealed that the BBC declared that "The number of people protesting today is the largest number in a political event in the history of mankind."

As I discovered later, arguing with anyone from either camp about the validity of those numbers was essentially useless. The numbers were taken and distributed as divine revelation that can’t be subject to examination. Fiction aside, anyone with a sliver of brain can open Google Earth, use the “ruler” tool to measure the area where the demonstrations took place. Assuming a maximum average density of 4 persons/square meter, you can get a rough estimate of the number of people present. Doing this for Rabaa Al Adaweya, and assuming that Al Nasr rd. was packed from Yousef Abbas st. to Ahmed Tayseer st., a respectable 1 full Km, and similar distance in al Tayaran st., gives us between 320,000 and 400,000 demonstrators, depending on your measurements. A far cry from the claimed 4 or even 3 million souls present. Tahrir square on the other hand, including all streets leading to it, didn’t fare much better, yielding between 400,000 and 600,000 again, depending on your measurements. Assuming that 700,000 people in total were present between Tahrir square and Etihadeya palce, and since Cairo presents a little over 20% of Egypt’s total population, this gives us about 3.5 million people, at most, protesting in all of Egypt. The real number, in my humble opinion, was far less, as the percentage of people protesting in other governorates was considerably smaller compared to Cairo (as seen from TV footage), with only few exceptions.

As for Mr. Sawiris’s tweet, I couldn’t find a single source that confirms his grandiose claim, whether from the BCC or otherwise. Yet the numbers and the claim spread on social media like wildfire.

It seems to me that in the current climate of division and political confusion that plagues Egypt, voices of reason, rationality and reconciliation are lost to those who promote hatred, exclusion and revenge, from both sides. And instead of objective analysis and genuine effort to find common ground, everyone indulged in an orgy of accusations, incitements and conspiracies. It’s understood that whoever in power, not the opposition, is ultimately responsible for the safety and welfare of a nation. And If Mr. Morsi was to blame for the division that gripped the Egyptian political street, then it’s the sole responsibility of the current leadership, not the MB to mend this rift. If it doesn’t, then we’re likely in for a long, bitter, protracted conflict.

When Democracy Begets a Coup

What happened in Egypt in the past few days took many by surprise, and left governments all over the world scrambling to evaluate the events in Egypt and how to brand it.

From a western democracy’s point of view, what happened in Egypt is, by any account, non-democratic. Essentially, one of the parties involved in a conflict imposed their own views by brute force. The reasons behind this act and the circumstances that eventually led to it are of no particular interest here, the bottom line is, the army forced the democratically elected president out of office, end of story. As one analyst put it, “what happened in Egypt is a coup and anybody who thinks otherwise is a coup-coup”. The views of some in Egypt, however, are dramatically different.

Mr. Morsi, whether he likes it or not, and by virtue of his position, bears full responsibility for what happens in Egypt, including the events that led to the coup. This is not to say the coup is Mr. Morsi’s creation but rather to emphasize that the success or failure of any organization is a direct result of the success or failure of its leaders. This holds true regardless of any properties of said organization. A CEO can’t blame the employees for the stumbling of his company, and in Mr. Morsi’s case, the deep polarization in Egyptian society during his last few months in office can only be attributed to the lack of a strong leadership capable of rallying everyone behind it rather than to a conspiracy by some to remove him from office; a fact that had deadly consequences while escaping his notice altogether. Mr. Morsi obviously was no Mandela.

Perhaps Mr. Morsi’s greatest failure though is his decisions in the few days leading to the coup. Whether it’s democratic or not, whether he’s the legitimate leader or not, and regardless of any sentiment towards his opponents or how much backing he enjoys among his supporters, he first and foremost should have put Egypt’s welfare above and beyond anything else, which unfortunately, he didn’t. In a rapidly deteriorating situation where hundreds of thousands of charged pro and anti Morsi demonstrators took to the streets, and when it seemed that a prolonged bloody confrontation was imminent, Mr. Morsi failed to take the only responsible action to avoid bloodshed and save Egypt from spiralling into chaos; namely, an early presidential elections or even a referendum. In a critical crossroads in his nation’s history and facing a choice between his legitimacy and the prospects of civil war, Mr. Morsi chose civil war.

It’s interesting here to note that by reaching an impasse by the end of June 30^th, any scenario for future events, except for early presidential elections, would have led to an outcome not much different from the one we have now.

The military, on its part, took a calculated approach to the events, except one that didn't really leave them many options. The deteriorating situation in the streets would have undoubtedly led to full scale confrontations, and once blood is shed it could prove very difficult to stop or even control the situation, and the military would find itself obliged to act at a time when it might be too late to act. With news of sporadic clashes, injuries and deaths in different parts of the country, there seemed to be little choice for the military but to intervene, and quickly, if it had any hopes in preventing the situation from deteriorating any further. But how to intervene without taking sides? For the military to remain neutral, they would have to disperse millions in the streets from both sides and probably impose martial law in all of Egypt, effectively taking control of the country while still risking confrontation, except one that’s between them and everybody else! This, apparently, wasn’t the military’s first choice. Now the only option left was to take sides, but which side? Given how much the new leadership in Egypt alienated the military during the past year, coupled with massive numbers of demonstrators all over Egypt; it wasn’t really much of a choice. To support the president, the military would have had to get into direct confrontation with a large segment of Egypt’s intellectuals, youth, the judiciary, the press, the old guards and many other disaffected organizations, something they probably didn’t want to risk. In any case, it’s unlikely that picking either side would have made much difference to the end result; for whatever was the choice, a large segment of society will have to be alienated and the military will have to deal with the consequences. In the end, the military picked the side which seemed to have more numerical support in the street, while as a last resort, tried to force the president to act by sending a clear message that he must resolve the situation before it gets out of hand or else they will intervene. The rest, of course, is history.

It’s an understatement to describe the mood among Mr. Morsi’s supporters after the coup as angry, and rightfully so. And it appears that whether it was miscalculation or part of a contingency plan, the military will likely still find itself facing a civil war scenario after all.

With an obvious lack of responsible leadership in both camps, especially on the brotherhood side, it’s hard to imagine the brotherhood licking its wounds, swallowing its pride and putting stability before revenge, considerable loss of life notwithstanding. And it won’t be long before we see Egyptians killing fellow Egyptians in the name of Legitimacy, Religion and Freedom, to the beats of war drums frivolously played on both sides.

It would be interesting to see how the military will deal with the situation then without imposing martial law or other drastic measures to keep the situation from exploding, leaving no choice for the rest of the world but to brand their actions officially as a coup.