When Two Worlds Collide

Though the two worlds of entertainment and politics orbit around different issues and are inhabited by people who are structured somewhat differently, they always tend to meet and intermingle one way or another. Politicians have long been fascinated by leading ladies of the silver screen that made for some great stories of what happens when these two worlds collide.

We escape into the world of entertainment when we have had enough of being lost in the twisted maze of politics, but where do we go when we find the two becoming one? Whilst in the past celebrity lives were mostly mysterious to those outside their world, nowadays all thanks to tabloids and social networks, that mystery has been laid to rest.

Contrary to what many celebrity publicists will have you believe, celebrities are indeed human beings. Some of them with political and social concerns have chosen to break their silence and take up activism to fight for what they believe is sacred. But this freedom of expression comes at a price.

When a celebrity rallies for a cause they are at risk of losing fans, for you might very well love the celebrity but loathe their political position. Here lies the great sacrifice famous people have to face, to forgo their social responsibility knowing full well that they have a great platform from which they can be heard, or forever hold their peace in fear of losing the fame and money they worked so hard to attain.

During the uprising in Egypt the then-famous Egyptian singer Tamer Hosny was ostracised from Tahrir Square by the revolutionaries because they recalled that at the onset of the rallies he was sent by the government to advise them to go home. Hosny’s political position reduced the voice of Egypt’s young generation, who packed stages across the country, to a YouTube clip of the young man crying after being humiliated by the people of the revolution.

Meanwhile, as the Libyan people fought to regain control of their destiny it was revealed that both American singers Nelly and Beyoncé have been paid millions of dollars to appear for one of Saif Al Islam Gaddafi’s birthday bashes. Knowing full well what kind of reaction this political connection might have on their image, both singers stated that they have nothing to do with the dictator’s money and gave it back to the Libyan people.

Recently, the Belgian singer Lara Fabian, who was scheduled to sing in Lebanon for this year’s Valentine’s Day concert, had to withdraw due to an outcry by the Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel in Lebanon, because of pro-Israeli comments she had made.

The American actor Mel Gibson and Christian Dior’s once token designer John Galliano have both felt the wrath of the fans when both were caught voicing anti-Jewish comments. The former has had a hard time getting any of his work produced in Hollywood and the latter was immediately fired from his prestigious position at the House of Dior.

This backlash by fans over celebrities’ political backgrounds is not reserved only for actors and singers but applies to sports figures as well. During the height of the protests in Bahrain football players, who chose to partake in the rallies, have been named and shamed on Bahrain’s local television station, some even withdrew from the league as a result.

A work of art should be judged independently from its artist. Would a painting be as magnificent if we judged the hands that held the brush? Would a love poem be as passionate if we had preconceived notions that its writer was in fact cold and distant?

Most of us fail to see this distinction.

We must realise that diverse worlds such as these exist in a grey universe, where the colours black and white are forever blended. The inhabitants of each must know that stepping out of their territories could bring with it risks they might not be willing to take.

In the political world your views and moral standings are aimed at propelling you into the heights of your cause, but in the world of entertainment they could form the noose that would wrap around your neck. The choice is theirs to make but they do not pay the price alone, it is also paid by the people who once appreciated the art within them and now can no longer see it.

This article was first published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 29th Jan. 2012

Qatar’s dry island

In December last year Qatar announced banning the sale of alcohol in The Pearl, a luxurious residential community. This announcement, just like any other announcement coming from Qatar, invited a slew of opposition from both foreign and local media alike. 

Speculations and predictions of Islamic takeover of the country and loss of insurmountable amounts of money washed over analysts’ writings. Some deeming this a natural by-product of the situation in Bahrain, others warning of negative implications it might have on Qatar hosting the FIFA World Cup in, yes you said it, 2022. The implications of this decision have been foreseen twelve years into the future. 

After all the dramatic articles written on Qatar’s ban of alcohol I feel I must emphasise that the ban is not a general one but one that is concerned with a single area of the country. Qatar allows the sale and consumption of alcohol in up-scale hotels and certain designated areas and this specific ban will not affect the existing law. 

Having said that, is it really that bizarre for an Arab country, which operates under Sharia Law, to take such a step? 

Granted, Qatar practises a moderate form of Sharia, just like some of its neighbouring Gulf States, nevertheless it is still governed by religion. Gulf countries have no segregation of religion and state, therefore, are bound by the rules of Islam, hence my bewilderment at the extreme interpretation of this step.

The greatest cliché used by commentators today is playing the religion card at the first chance they get. None of those, who predicted and speculated, asked why this decision was actually taken. None of them stopped to wonder what propelled a moderate country like Qatar to issue such a restriction keeping in mind the increasing population of expatriates. 

The Pearl is a residential community targeted towards families. Residents of this community have complained of loud noise and lewd behaviour occurring on the island due to the excessive consumption of alcohol. That combined with the increasing rates of alcohol-related car accidents and problems with alcohol addiction have resulted in social concerns as opposed to religious ones. 

It is true that in most Gulf countries the population ratio tips heavily towards the expatriate, but that does not mean that governments should turn a deaf ear to the legitimate concerns of its people. One could even say that it would be unwise at this period of time to do so considering the highly charged situation in the Middle East.

It is unfair to speak on behalf of expatriates residing in Qatar and assume that a specific decision such as this one could affect their living standards. Expatriates, who choose to make Gulf countries their homes, are respectful of their rules and on the most part abide perfectly by their laws. 

Other Gulf countries have a complete ban on alcohol, is it fair then to assume that all expatriates residing in these countries lead disruptive lives? On the contrary people are free to practise their religion for they are all religiously tolerant countries, where churches welcome worshippers just as mosques do. 

The consumption of alcohol, just like the smoking of cigarettes, is a choice that can have negative implications on more than just their user. They affect the health and well-being of those in the surrounding vicinity. Qatar made a decision with the preservation and betterment of the community in mind and based on legitimate complaints.

This ban seems to have the most negative impact not on the country’s society but on its businesses. The major opposition to this ban came from restaurant owners on The Pearl and their liquor suppliers for people who wish to drink in Qatar can still visit places other than The Pearl. And so the inevitable question rears its head once again. Is it worth sacrificing the stability of society for the prosperity of the business world? 

It is imperative that countries be welcoming and respectful towards their expatriate community, yet all the while hold on to the social and moral fabric of their society. 

It is easy to fall into a pit of Islam-based generalisations when hearing of decisions coming out of an Arab country. It is best that we steer away from generalisations altogether for they rarely hold any truths and mostly rob us of common sense.

This article was first published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 22nd Jan., 2012.

Democracy Resurrects the Religious

The first leg of the race for the 2012 United States’ presidency has taken off with the primary elections and the politicians’ gloves have officially come off. Although it is too early to make any solid predictions as to which candidate will be nominated for either party so far in the Republican race Mitt Romney’s numbers show he is pushing slightly ahead of the rest. 

Romney ticks all the Republican Party boxes. He is a well-connected businessman, has a political background having been Governor of Massachusetts, he ran for the 2008 presidential elections and dare I say he is also a male Caucasian. With the Republican Party struggling to find a solid candidate to go head to head with the Democrats, Romney seems like the obvious choice, only he is not. With Fox News Channel, the Republican Party’s greatest propaganda machine, spewing anti-Romney statements it is safe to say that Romney is not the party’s preferred candidate. In the past Romney’s views have contradicted the party’s political position but he has since mended his ways, which leaves us with one remaining Romney-factor that could be justification enough for the Republican Party’s turned up nose. The main reason for Romney’s alienation lies in his faith. Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is a religion that spurs from Christianity and follows The Church of Jesus Christ Later-day Saints. It is a religious movement that is considered by many Americans as being more of a cult than a religious group, and because of its strict beliefs, is usually shrouded in negative connotations. Mormonism among other things is known to practise the law of chastity before marriage, have a strict code against any addictive substances such as alcohol, tobacco and caffeine and support polygamy. Taking into consideration that the Republican Party is mostly made up of evangelicals Romney’s religion is constantly being scrutinised by the other candidates in hopes of swaying the voters.In an ideal democracy, such as the one the United States aspires to be, one’s religious beliefs should not factor into the equation of a potential president’s qualifications and ability to run a country. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights separated religion from state yet ironically religion remains a major deciding factor in American elections. Fifty years ago John F. Kennedy had to defend his Catholic faith in a speech saying: “So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again — not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.” Reality does not portray this idealism for even in the most democratic parts of the world we find presidents fighting this prejudice. After four years in the White House President Barack Obama is still being scrutinised for his background and faith. Some claim he is in fact a Muslim, while others believe he is not, they still question the degree of his Christianity based on the number of Church appearances he has made and the references to God in his speeches. While emphasis on faith and religious beliefs seems to be an important catalyst for the American candidates we are seeing quite the opposite reaction happening in the Middle East.Islamic parties are steering away from religious aspects of their beliefs and focusing more on greater impending ones. In 2002, the Turkish people voted overwhelmingly for Tayyip Erdogan a representative of the Islamic Justice and Development Party bearing in mind this is the same nation belonging to Kemal Ataturk, the man who separated religious and governmental affairs, and who believed that it is only through which modernity and culture can be achieved. After winning the parliamentary elections in Morocco, the Islamic Justice and Development Party immediately asserted that there will be no morality police or ban on alcohol and women shall not be forced to wear the veil. This formula has proved successful in winning voters’ confidence for other Islamic parties in Tunisia and Egypt as well. The people are speaking, and their voices are going for the religious, be it Mormons in the White House or the Islamic parties in the Arab Spring’s newly-born democracies, we are bearing witness to nations leaning towards what history fought to subdue. After witnessing so much political corruption have we come to the age where we call on faith to take a seat at the head of the political table? The fear is never of religion but of those who take its name in vain, the idea is not losing faith but being blinded by it. 

If indeed what we desire is democracy then we must adhere to its rules and believe it when it calls on respecting the people’s voice no matter what it shouts for. If today that voice shouts for Mormons and the Muslim Brotherhood then we must stand aside and let democracy have its way, otherwise we should not call for it in the first place.

This article was first published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 17th of January, 2012.

Don’t be afraid to say the F-word

When French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde was chosen to be the managing director of the IMF no news wire missed out on the words “first woman to head the IMF.” In the many interviews she endured following her recruitment she had to answer questions revolving around her marital life rather than her position and what she intended to do with its power. She was described in an article as a “divorcee with two sons,” a description I have yet to read about a man in any position. Answering yet another question about her gender as an IMF director she said, “I honestly think that there should never be too much testosterone in one room.” How else is a woman who comes from the land of the Republican Motherhood supposed to respond?

It is instances like these that remind us of what feminism allowed us to forget. Still, as women are reaching once unimaginable heights they are haunted by thoughts that question their abilities. At one point in time, women's rights were important, fighting for them was important, gaining them was a must, that point in time has passed. The urgency has slowed down, the priorities have been blurred and the word feminism has developed many faces and lost its way in the crowded world of activism.

The word feminism has become synonymous with the idea of man-hating when in fact it has more to do with women than men. The idea was to become equal to what man has achieved and never to downgrade man's role. This misconception has led to the demise of the word, no longer does any woman want to be labelled a feminist for fear of being accused of hating men.

When asked if she is a feminist the American pop singer Beyoncé Knowles said she didn't feel the need to define what she is. This is coming from a singer who brought us a long list of chart-topping girl power anthems such as Independent Women, Survivor, If I Were a Boy, Single Ladies and Run the World. She is also a volunteer and supporter of the CARE organisation that works to empower women around the world, which makes it all the more baffling that she would fear to be called a feminist.

If there should be a reason for this label to disappear from our vocabulary it must not be because of a negative connotation but because there should not be only a segment of the female race that believes in their rights.

Every woman, hell, every man should be a feminist, that is the only way to render this word obsolete.

Throughout history women have fought for one right after another, right to education and the right to be viewed equally by the scrutinising eyes of the law. They fought so the world would understand that theirs is a global issue, one affecting half the planet's population.

Women thinkers, philosophers and activists like Virginia Woolf, Simone de Beauvoir and Sylvia Plath have written extensively on the subject of women's rights believing that only a woman can truly portray the struggle of her race. Books like Woolf's A Room of One's Own and de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, which as far as I'm considered, should be read by men before women, caused an explosion of female enlightenment and gave voice to issues rendered dumb by years of injustice.

Yet as we see less and less women embracing the cause, does that mean we have attained equality and that we no longer need the 'dreaded' feminist?

Equality might have been attained in some parts of the world, yet there are many segments of the world still subjugating women and young girls to all kinds of cruelty and injustice for no other reason than their gender. The irony cannot be escaped when a glass ceiling shatters in one part of the world and a girl is being denied education and forced into marriage in another. This imbalance makes it all the more necessary to speak up for those of us who continue to be silenced by ignorance and fear.

Feminism is not dead. Feminism has altered itself, morphing into a more entertaining entity, in order to survive in a world where it has become easier to digest an issue if it came with its own music video.

For women's rights to exist today the idea of feminism has to be subtly reintroduced back into the world. Therefore, for women's rights to be addressed we must sing about female solidarity instead of rallying for it, and if this generation would rather rename it 'Bootylicious' instead, then so be it.

But no matter what we do, we must not belittle the struggle of superwomen, who championed our rights at times when the idea of such equality was unfathomable. Names like Gloria Steinem and Huda Shaarawi must be taught not forgotten, for without their daily battles the world would not have had a Beyoncé today.

This article was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on 25th Sep., 2011.

Palestine’s creation is America’s salvation

This September marked the 10th anniversary of the Trade Center attacks and while you have been overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of media coverage of this event it is quite possible that you might have missed another major event happening this month.

The Palestinian government will bid for a UN membership. In an unprecedented move proving that it has finally seen the futility of this two-decade old ‘peace process’, Palestine has ended the waiting game and finally opted to upgrade its diplomatic standing at the United Nations instead. 

And why shouldn’t it? After all, the State of Palestine fulfills all the criteria codified in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States to exist under international law. Palestine has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other states, which makes its bid legitimate. In addition, more than 120 UN member states already recognise the State of Palestine, which would technically make the voting process a sure win.

In an ideal world the State of Palestine would be a done deal yet in the real world, where political agendas overshadow logic and basic humanity, the State of Palestine will never be recognised.

That which stands between the existence of an independent Palestine and the complete evaporation of it, is but a word. This word has come to resemble the antithesis of progress in the world of politics, the word ‘veto’ is in fact the United Nation’s Kryptonite.

Veto is a Latin word meaning ‘I forbid’, and the United Nations Security Council has ordained the powers of this word to five countries. China, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and the United States of America are the chosen ones.

This word gives its owners the power to block any resolution regardless of the amount of votes in its favour. The United States has already threatened to veto the Palestinian bid thereby ending this story before it begins. So why then the extensive diplomatic efforts exerted in persuading President Mahmoud Abbas into backing down?

The US has sent Hillary Clinton, David Hale, Dennis Ross and even brought Tony Blair back from the political rubble of the past, to talk Abbas out of this ‘mad’ notion. The reason for all these persuasive negotiations is that the US knows that even by winning the battle it would most certainly lose the war. This particular veto puts the US firmly in Israel’s isolated corner leaving the unbiased world watching, confused by its unsubstantiated position.

The US government does not wish to once again contradict itself when only a few months earlier its President addressed a rejuvenated Middle East and in his own words acknowledged the need for an existence of the State of Palestine saying; “a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples.” In this same speech Obama uttered the ‘blasphemous’ words “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines”.

This sentence sent Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into a flying rage and made for one of the most awkward meetings in American-Israeli relations. In this meeting Netanyahu bluntly told the leader of the free world that his vision of Middle East peace is unrealistic and called it an illusion. Never in history has an American president been subjected to such harsh comments on live television. After enduring this humiliating ordeal Obama never mentioned the year 1967 again.

Vetoing Palestine’s bid will confirm that Obama has learned Netanyahu’s lesson and once again shown the world how strong a hold Zionism has on American politics.

The United States is discouraging the bid on the basis that a Palestinian state cannot exist without reaching an agreement with Israel first. Yet Israel is able to exist without reaching that same agreement. After decades of Palestinian compromise on issues such as the right of return of Palestinian refugees of the 1948 war, the Camp David Accords agreement which left the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt barren and the continuous illegal building of settlements in Palestinian territories, when will the world see Israel’s compromise?

The fact of the matter is that Palestine does not require permission from a country that continues to break international laws with no regard for any repercussions as long as they are in its best interest.

How can the United States expect to lead a fair and just negotiation process when the key players on the field are not on level footing? How can one believe that the President of the United States is taking note of Palestinian issues when he himself is denying its existence?

The creation of the State of Palestine will level the playing field and give substance to future negotiations. It will raise the morale of the Palestinian people who, while Arab nations everywhere are waking up to new beginnings and newly developed levels of self-respect, are feeling all the more ostracized. And it will eventually plant, in the Middle East, the seeds of trust that America longs for. 

In his election campaign President Obama promised the American people that he would clean up the tarnished image of the United States. Standing in the way of the inherent right for people to exist in their own territory will see the President breaking that promise.

This was America’s chance to rid itself of Israel’s political chains and take a stance that would undoubtedly show the true spirit of the American people. Nevertheless the threat has been issued and the world has heard it loud and clear.

Even if the ending has already been written and Palestine does not win the battle for the bid, it wins the war by revealing the irony that the land of the free is also the land denying others freedom. 

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 18th September, 2011. 

You Poured Fuel on Murdoch’s Fire and Cried Help

The past few months saw Britain consumed by an incident, which ignited hundreds of debates and opened doors to arguments that were once sealed shut. The sheer speed in which the News of the World newspaper came tumbling down was shocking to say the least. After 168 years of providing its readers with scandal after scandal and making it its prerogative to pry into the lives of every public figure it could get its hands on, News of the World ended its run with a headline that simply read; "THANK YOU & GOODBYE". In an ironic twist of fate the tabloid went down with the same grandiose publicity that it once prosecuted its subjects with.

Rupert Murdoch, media baron and Chairman of News Corporation along with the Editor in Chief of News of the World Rebekah Brooks were accused of using illegal means to obtain information, mainly by hacking private citizens’ phones and bribing police officers. In true Machiavellian logic, when it came to a scoop News of the World justified all means. Indeed it is just a local Sunday paper that closed down but its demise sent shockwaves all around the journalistic world. For once the British parliament seemed to agree on an issue, calling for law amendments and prosecution of those involved in these invasions of privacy. Newspapers all over the world ran editorials on the incident, some condemning the paper's actions, preaching about ethics in journalism and insisting on drawing clearer lines to stop journalists from infringing on people's rights. Others sided with News of the World pointing out that  what was committed was not a crime but in fact true investigative journalism, whereby the job entails retrieval of information as fast as possible by any means possible.  

Now that News of the World closed down and its two hundred employees safely relocated to another Murdoch-owned enterprise, the dust is slowly settling on this journalistic whirlwind and the eyes are slowly beginning to experience clarity. We might even begin to see that Murdoch, Brooks and the News of the World journalists are not the only ones who should be scrutinised and condemned. After all, this tabloid has had the highest readership in Britain until the day it closed its doors. According to the National Readership Survey, News of the World secured 13.8 percent of the entire British market exceeding all other Sunday papers. And while every other paper in the UK is suffering with regards to revenue News of the World’s projections continuously showed profits.

If we believe the numbers then the ones who should stand trial along with Murdoch and Brooks are the readers. Yes, the readers. A product could not survive without a market, someone had to supply to the relentless demands for gossip and that is exactly what News of the World did. It catered to people's insatiable appetite with a buffet of scandalous revelations that while made for a great feast, ruined people's lives in the process. The reason why tabloids still make profits while respectable journalism struggles to make ends meet is you, the reader. When you would rather read about a politician's torrid love affair rather than his active role in governmental policy, you become a particle in the force pushing papers like News of the World over the lines of ethics and human rights. People have an innate curiosity for the affairs of others and this curiosity is never satisfied. Readers don’t want to know how a tabloid gets its information they just want it. Once a piece of salacious news enters the bloodstream more is needed to maintain that initial high but how do you get more? By eavesdropping? Sticking ones head in someone’s mailbox? Going through their trash? Phone hacking is the tip of the tabloid iceberg and readers know it, yet they choose to cast a blind eye for the sake of satisfying their addiction to gossip. If Murdoch is guilty of the charges against him then News of the World readers should be guilty for aiding and abetting them.

News of the World won many British Press Awards one of which was for ‘Newspaper of the Year’ in 2005. The public fed the fire that was raging in the newsroom and encouraged them to go forward, for with 7.5 million readers and a shelf stacked with awards News of the World’s formula could not have been wrong, or could it?

When News of the World’s web of lies and deceit detangled its loyal readers abandoned it. Shocked at the scandal they gawked and pointed fingers at the paper that once was their sole means of news (according to Enders Analysis, the closure of News of the World will see two-thirds of its readers never picking up another Sunday paper again). In the end, the user blamed the dealer when in fact both were as much a part of the scandal as the other.  

As everyone stood aside opportunity presented itself to the politicians, they pounced at the chance to get back at this paper that has heckled them for years exposing their lies and costing many their positions. And so News of the World was to be made an example of, British journalism will no longer be above the law and with that the free press around the world gasped in unison feeling the hammering of one more nail in its coffin.    

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 7th August, 2011.

Living Green Has Us Seeing Red

The past few weeks have shown us an image foreign to most UAE dwellers’ eyes. The image of one deserted petrol station after another in an oil rich country, ah the mother of all ironies. Unlike others this sight did not trigger in me the great debates of finance and economics, rather it steered me towards a different course. It got me thinking of the human being’s complete dependence on a vanishing resource, of a human being living an ephemeral life on the hopes that he shall never face its complete depletion.

Steps are being taken everyday by the United Arab Emirates’ government towards creating a country less dependent on oil. And a great effort is being exerted in the renewable energy sector to secure a future less grim than that filled with images of cars in gridlock heading towards the only operating petrol station in town.

The worrisome part of this equation is not on the corporate or governmental level but on the personal one. Everywhere we look we are being reminded of our responsibility towards the world we live in. Eco-friendly campaigns aimed at guilting us into recycling and caring for the environment are all around us yet these efforts do not seem strong enough to paint a person’s entire life green.

We all do the odd recycling here and there and most of us would opt for a recyclable bag at the grocery store instead of a plastic one but a total conversion of one’s lifestyle is a daunting thought. In order for a person to convert fully to the green world he is expected to change his entire frame of mind, he must be prepared to live a life where thinking green will be the deciding factor of all his future endeavors.

Should you be the one to take the leap then realistically there are a few other hurdles you have to overcome. Being green is expensive. Buying any of the alternative energy sources to power your home will set you back a hefty chunk of money. If you wish to use solar power you must invest in solar cells, which come at an unreasonable price for quite a reasonable idea.

But since you have committed to the lifestyle then your movement should also be green therefore it will be a horse, a bicycle or an electric car for you. In this hot and humid region the first two options are unlikely therefore, the electric car it is. If you have moved past the shallow mindset of it being quite ugly, how far do you think the electric car would get you and how fast will you really be able to maneuver in the UAE traffic? When it comes to farther destinations are you willing to forgo your vacation, which you know requires you to use a plane that burns gallons of oil, to reduce your carbon footprint? Before you answer you should know that years of your recycling will be offset by this one plane ride.

If you are still willing to convert then I tip my hat to your bravery because in addition to the above, not many people will be on board with the compulsive details of your lifestyle and you might soon find yourself feeling like a vegetarian in a meat eater’s household.

Being green is a great concept but it requires more than ad campaigns and awareness seminars. Every day cigarette boxes tell smokers that their contents will literally kill them but that does not deter the fingers from pulling one out. What must be changed is the psychology of the human mind, the greed and selfishness of the individual. As long as people put themselves first, Mother Nature will be second and as long as alternative technologies remain expensive and hard to acquire, cheap and available will be the common choice.

From a psychological viewpoint, believing in the importance of a green lifestyle seems to me as difficult as believing in a faith different than the one you follow. You are expected to change your ways and hold a new creed close to your heart. It is difficult to accept at first and as you go along there will be hard roads to tread, many will falter, but you must go on, because you believe with every ounce of your sanity that the end will be glorious.

Sometimes it takes more than persuasion to get people to believe, sometimes it takes a miracle.

Our world needs one now more than ever. 

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on July 3rd, 2011.