Islamic country and proceeded to classify the states as “supporters of terrorism”, and the “axis of evil” on the basis that the Muslims are at the head of the list and its target, which is what the open letter from the sixty intellectuals came to consecrate with a philosophical consecration.

We do not claim that what the signatories wrote was a Freudian slip. But there may have been an attempt to deceive the twinge of conscience when morality is evoked, not in the inhumanity of war, but in the military tribunals and treatment of prisoners, and the restrictions against the media and concealing of factual information from the people, such as when the CNN news network has two separate broadcasts, one for domestic consumption, and one for overseas, reminiscent of the media in Eastern Europe during the Communist era.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that we are in a situation similar to the situation of the Popes, bishops and kings of Europe during the Middle Ages who sent crusade after crusade against the Islamic East. The current Pope has apologized to the Islamic World for those wars, but we believe these intellectuals ought to be ahead of their time and present a similar apology for what the American administration is doing to the Muslims, and therefore open the door to dialogue and understanding between the two religions and two civilizations. Unfortunately, they chose another path, and it may take centuries for us to hear this apology, if such values that call for one even exist.

The open letter contains historical and philosophical generalizations in need of a thorough examination, but we are not prepared to enter into a debate about philosophy or theology, not only because of the lack of space, but also because of our absolute conviction that we must believe in and accept as fact, all that is true and just, no matter what its source, and that we must reject all that is false and unjust, no matter where it is from. Except that the problem, which we shall consider forthwith, is that they ascribe absolute truth to the temporary historical situation of a particular nation, in a particular stage in history, calling it “universal moral principles,” which is a claim any nation can make. The result will only be to transfer wars from the battlefield to the world of values, which contradicts the apparent intention of this letter as stated in its conclusion. That is, unless we believe the Zionist journalist, Thomas Friedman, who clearly states that it is the cultural war which is more important to America, and that changing the social system, regime, and school curriculum is the most important part of the battle with the Islamic world. In that case, “universal values” become a means, not a goal. The reader has a right dispute this, so we will leave off this possibility and discuss the subject based on historical facts and logic.

The logical basis of this great claim is lost for a simple reason: the principle on which these universal truths are based is the principle of “natural law.” It is unacceptable to rely on invoking an obscure principle like natural law whose existence is hard to prove, let alone accepting it in the most complicated problem to face mankind.

Rather, historical reality bears witness that the theories which have done the worst injustice to human rights were able, and are able, to base themselves on this principle.

Ricardo, in his justification of capitalist greed which was the primary motive for the colonial conquests in human history, depended on it, as did Malthus and Bentham in forbidding charity and benevolent treatment of the poor in violation of the greatest human values, more shocking than Darwin’s decision that natural law is established on the principle that life is a struggle and survival is for the fittest, which became the philosophical basis for the destructive wars and totalitarian systems of Modern Europe. As for the founding fathers of America, they only cited it due to their belief that it was