The Forty Rules of Love | Review

WhatsApp Image 2017-04-25 at 5.39.49 PM
Photo by Voracious Shelf



I believe that each and every book you read, you read in a time when the story in the book is taking a place in your real story in life. I started reading this book while passing a crucial point in my life. I was battling the part in me who wants to stay and the other who wants to leave, battling skepticism and faith. My encounter with sufism came at the right time, where I could finally clear things up once and for all.

The book, the best description for it will be; a deep read about Islam before encountering a Muslim or Quran. I personally will start recommending this book for whomever wants to convert or know more about Islam. The essence of Islam lays in Sufism; it’s the deepest -fourth read- truest spot in the heart of Islam, as I like to say “Islam as it should be”. In a world full of preachers from every faith and kind, Sufism is where you can never get lost or be sceptic about anything.

I like to leave the pleasure of reading this book for you, as I don’t recommend talking about the book’s events. But make sure to read A LOT about Rumi and Shams of Tibriz before and after reading the book. Get to know them more and fall in love with them. Also, always keep in mind to be enlightened, and never ever judge anything or anyone. it’s not up to us to judge.

The Forty Rules of Love by Elif Shafak

January 12, 2017 – Started Reading
January 26, 2017 – Finished Reading

* I have a copy of the book.


The Basics: Philosophy | Review




Is it possible to consider philosophy a fun reading? Well, it is. Especially for this book; Nigel makes sure to let it be so. It’s brief, thought-provoking and easy-to-read. Highly recommend for freshmen in philosophy and, in my case, “People fond of philosophy but don’t know from where to start”.

Nigel discusses some of the highly controversial questions in philosophy and covers the most distinctive topics in the same field: God, Right and wrong, Politics, The external world, Science, Mind and Art. I must allude to the ease of vocabulary and structures he has chosen; we know that when it comes to philosophic vocabulary it’s all smoke and mirrors.

Nonetheless, it had some slight defects related to the content or let’s say to the definitions of arguments; I can clearly notes it’s just “A BASIC” yet it doesn’t have to be that short in defining arguments, it was like googling something and a very short definition ( three lines or less) from Wikipedia appears on the top right. However, Wikipedia gives you the feature of expanding the definition yet Nigel don’t. I was left high and dry at some points.

“My aim here is to give you the tool to think about philosophical issues yourselves rather than simply explain what certain great figures have thought about them.”

Another defect to mention; it did not cover two of the substantial topics known in philosophy: Free Will and Personal Identity (i.e. Free Will was mentioned under the chapter of God not as a chapter per se). However, it wasn’t hard-and it won’t be- neither for me nor for other readers to find the implied message the author wants us to find: philosophy is solely an art of observation. Every observer has its own unique way of interpreting the surrounding issues. Thus, any argument or any premise in that regard is subject to revoke. Nevertheless, there is not one argument went without several objections. Some arguments might sound utterly silly and offbeat, yet others provide food for thought, but on both ways it’s absolutely your call to follow what suits your way of observation or to simply revoke the arguments.

“Part of what they mean by this is that once a literary you text is made public, it is for the reader to interpret it: the author should no longer be considered to hold a privileged position in this respect … The meaning of text is created by the reader’s interpretation rather than the writer’s intentions.”

“In the end each, believer must judge whether or not his or her face is appropriate and genuine.”

“A god who allows such suffering for merely aesthetic purpose in order to appreciate it in the way one appreciates a work of art, sounds more like a sadist than the all- good deity described by theists. If this is the role suffering plays, then it makes God uncomfortably close to the psychopath who throws a bomb into a crowd in order to admire the beautiful patterns created by the explosion and the blood.”

The Basics: Philosophy by Nigel Warburton

March 28, 2017 – Started Reading
April 19, 2017 – Finished Reading

* I don’t have a copy of the book.


Franny and Zooey | Review



Franny and Zooey, if it’s anything, it’ll be the most intellectual and engaging novella by J.D.Salinger. I have enjoyed every minute of reading it more than its predecessor, The Catcher in The Rye. It’s divided into two; a short story (Franny) and a Novella (Zooey).

If anything crossed my mind while reading Franny, it would be The Before Series. It had that atmosphere of casual talking, unstoppable one about anything and everything. It’s the typical discourse that goes between friends and, I’d like to say ‘enlightened couple’.
It was a pain in the ass for me when Lane kept mentioning the weekend, that it’s gonna be horrible, just because Franny seemed off and not in the mood, and then she fainted (I fainted too, when he ordered snails and frog legs, I had to speed up reading). I remember myself having the exact same conversation, with someone really Lane; however, I always admire J.D’s ability of describing teenage and young adults life and their way of speaking, he didn’t miss a thing; Moreover, I have to admit my enjoyment in what I call a plot-less story. Just like the Catcher in The Rye, which was amusing, yet plot-less to me but it’s impossible not to enjoy it.

I think I’ve seen my own reflection in Franny (it’s really troubling sometimes when you read your own character in a book) . Just like her, I study English and Italian languages, and I’m sickened to death of everyone in that department. I’m sick of student- and people in general- trashing literature, thinking they are poets just because they have wrote couple of lines while the resultant is a total trash. “If you’re a poet, you do something beautiful. I mean you’re supposed to leave something beautiful after you get off the page and everything.” And that’s exactly my point, not everyone who writes some lines becomes a poet, the result OUGHT TO measure up to be poetry, and then you can call yourself a poet all day long.
Another thing I must agree with, and always argue about, is that never taking what I call ‘individual importance’ seriously; just because some graduated critics in any filed or any singer, actor/ess; whatsoever, said that so-and so is talented/not talented etc. And you happen to disagree with him, all of a sudden you become “not aware of what you are saying”, “who are you to object or suspect his opinion?” they never give you any credit for your ideas and point of views just because you are undergraduate or haven’t studied the same field they have been studying since forever. Ideas of every individual should be considered important. That’s it.
In closing. Just like her, I’m attracted to the idea of turning to the spiritual world, not the physical world. She has “The Way of the Pilgrim” and I have “The Forty Rules of Love“.

Zooey, on the flip side, is well-knit and has the eye-opening theme. it basically talks about Bessie=Zooey, Zooey=Franny, Zooey=fat lady=Franny. Frankly, I can exactly feel or understand what Franny is going throw, because just like her, I’m a trigger (taking most of the things PERSONALLY, usually despise people for everything and nothing in particular, always stressed up, considering my self superior on others and can’t finish anything I start) and just when all this shit happens, here comes Zooey, in my case Zooey represents my brother in 80% of the cases. it’s were I found that this Novella talks about my family and I.
Franny is going throw an emotional breakdown and struggling with her religion, and her practical life. This chapter of the book focuses on three highly important traits; Concern yourself with your OWN ideals and standers, The most important thing is to be detached and to act regardless of the outcome (don’t encounter too much ego), Don’t Take It Personally, TRY to stand the people you meet, “If you’re going to go to war against the System, just do your shooting like a nice, intelligent girl — because the enemy’s there, and not because you don’t like his hairdo or his goddam neck-tie.”

One thing kept going on my mind; brilliance can be brutal, and this was the axis of the novella, when too much knowledge become brutal to the mind and relations with other. Now I’m recalling something a read in The Art of Dying for Osho, I didn’t think I quite understood it back then, but now I do, ” And the more the mind is stuffed with dead knowledge, the more dull and stupid you become. Knowledge makes people stupid; it dulls their sensitivity. It stuffs them, it becomes a weight on them, it strengthens their ego but it does not give light and it does not show them the way. It is not possible.”

“You’re lucky if you get time to sneeze in this goddam phenomenal world.”

Franny and Zooey by J.D. Salinger

January 28, 2017 – Started Reading
February 2, 2017 – Finished Reading
* I don’t have a copy of the book.

Free Will | Review




Why did I choose to read this book? This is the question the book posed. Why do we do the things we do? Why some people rape and others steal? Do we actually have the freedom that we nearly killed ourselves and others for it? The answer, no matter how painful it will be, is a BIG NO. We don’t have what so-called a “Free Will” as we persuaded ourselves of possessing it. Simply, and we’re talking scientifically not philosophically nor religiously but mere science, because all of our doings and thoughts are linked with previous events had occurred in the past and its resultant is what we unawarely call, Free Will. We do not have the freedom we think we have.

Every one of us knows John Lennon, but not everyone knows who shot dead John Lennon. It was Mark David Chapman, this man did not wake up on one wintry morning and said, “Oh I have a gun, why not go and shot John Lennon dead?” The true story is: that man used to idolize Lennon, but when he became a Christian he turned against him when he said that The Beatles were more popular than Jesus. And a lot of events had occurred and made his ire get bigger and bigger toward him. Let alone, his prior hatred and ire toward phonies. For him, John Lennon was a phony due to that. The straw that broke the camel’s back, was reading J.D.’s Novel: The Catcher in the Rye. Anyone who had read it will know what J.D. has focused on: “phonies”. Reading that book combined with his hatred toward phonies caused him a delusional psychotic state. He repeatedly said that the novel was his statement.
What we conclude from this story is that shooting John Lennon was due to unplanned reasons, grown with time and led to his death. As much as John Lennon was a victim, Mark was also a victim in his turn. You will say that he could have chosen not to shoot him, but No, he couldn’t have chosen otherwise. It’s a series of continuous events that we don’t have authority over it.
A series of events led to the action of raping and murdering, that’s why the rapist and the murderer are victims as much as the victim itself. Whether we choose to believe it or not.
People who do not want to believe in this truth, and they want to cling to their alleged “Free Will” will philosophize it. Whenever we start to philosophize the truth to suit our intentions and desires, we lose sight of this psychological truth.

“We do not know what we intend to do until the intention itself arises. To understand this is to realize that we are not the authors of our thoughts and actions in the way that people generally suppose.”

Are we free to do what does not occur to us to do?
Of course not. When choosing a fruit to eat out of multiple choices of fruits, but instinctively and involuntarily you pick a cherry. Why did you pick a cherry not an apple, though you love apples? The thought of picking up an apple didn’t occur to you, so you weren’t free to choose as much as you thought you were. If we are still believing that we have free wills, then why not to believe that we are little gods as well. We do not have free wills nor we are little gods.

“The illusion of free will is itself an illusion.”

Back to the main question I posed at the outset. Why did I choose to read this book? When my eyes signed on the title of the book, I remember a conversation I had year ago with a friend of mine, he was so much taken with the idea of free will, and arguing that we have will of our own. This whole conversation stayed on my mind until the day I read the title of the book and directly said to myself that I must read it, like NOW. Let alone, being raised in Islamic country where Quran clearly says that there is no free will.
That’s why I felt more attached to Harris than Dennett, even if I wanted to attach myself to Dennett; I will not be able to. I don’t have the free will to do so because of my previous life events which led directly to Harris.

“You can consider your first marriage, which ended in divorce, to be a “failure,” or you can view it as a circumstance that caused you to grow in ways that were crucial to your future happiness. Does this freedom of interpretation require free will? No. It simply suggests that different ways of thinking have different consequences. Some thoughts are depressing and disempowering; others inspire us. We can pursue any line of thought we want—but our choice is the product of prior events that we did not bring into being.”

It’s an eye-opining book, I recommend it to everyone. It was my first but not the last reading for Sam Harris. I watched all of his videos and I’m keeping myself updated to his latest, they are inspiring and enlightening.

Free will by Sam Harris 

March 1, 2017 – Started Reading
March 5, 2017 – Finished Reading
*I don’t have a copy of the book.



We Should All Be Feminists | Review



In my rest between readings, I recall someone recommended that I read Chimamanda Ngozi’s books. I searched to see if anything would interest me; it caught my attention an essay she wrote in 2012 call We Should All Be Feminists. What caught me wasn’t that the book talks about feminism (I have a neutral opinion in this regard) but using the modal SHOULD. It blew a fuse in me whenever I read that word. It’s not that I don’t use it, I do. And I hate the fact that I do use it sometimes.
When you are proposing particular issue, especially social issues, one should not (here I am using it) be using obligation formats because it makes the acceptance compelled rather than optional. That’s why we don’t have to use words like should. (i.e. We shouldn’t all be feminists, not that we shouldn’t be “feminists” but that we shouldn’t be obliged to be feminists, we are not forced to be so). Even in many cases, the things that we propose as “should be doing” are true or right yet it does not give us the right to oblige others with it. I hope I clearly expressed my fury.


The lovely “happy African feminist who does not hate men” takes us to the beautiful Lagos and share with us some of its anecdotes, were all of them formed the idea of feminism and what it’s really about. This time I don’t feel like critiquing anything rather than sharing my own experience regarding to this topic. I’m a woman too, even though I have a neutral opinion towards feminism but I have never denied it. Nevertheless, I face and still facing the same dilemmas most of the days.

Middle East culture, Jordanian in specific does not substantially differ from Nigerian culture. We are known for being masculine society and still fetching the ideas of: the man has to pay for the bill, shouldn’t express his feelings properly or show his feminine side, usually he’s the breadwinner. Moreover, girls at some point are expected to get marry and have children and if she passed a certain age without being married, people start to look at her pathetically, and call her maiden. However, the pressure of being called “Maiden” is fatigued and most men do not throw a damn to that because instead of calling men maidens as well, society calls them bachelor, single or unmarried and it’s usually taken as a positive and proudest term.

Unlike Nigerian society; Jordanian are close in a way, to adopt the concepts of equality between men and women. Nowadays, women are CEOs, ministerin, members in quota, breadwinners etc. They are expected to run their life side by side with men, are not marginalized anymore (professionally talking).

I will always be thankful to my father for so many things, especially for imposing my being on others; whenever we were together and someone greets him, he waits for him to greet me too and if he doesn’t he introduce me so he’s obliged to greet me. He never misses a chance to talk about me to his friends and to let me mingle with them. Moreover, Arabs take pride of their nicknames (Father of so and so) this “so and so” usually his son, whether he was the oldest, midmost or eldest one. But the point is, you gain your nickname instantly when your “first child” is born (whether it was a boy or a girl) but because we are “masculine society” we don’t like to be nicknamed after a girl, so whether we had a boy or not our nickname will be linked with a boy’s name no matter what. But my dad strongly refused to be nicknamed after one of his sons, although I was the only daughter and has three sons, but because I was the eldest, he named me after the city he loves the most, and nicknamed himself after me. Beside being a human rights activist, he was largely interested in the rights of women, he was feminist himself.

“If you are a man and you walk into a restaurant and the waiter greets just you, does it occur to you to ask the waiter, “Why have you not greeted her?” Men need to speak out in all of these ostensibly small situations.”

Something we have to understand very well; culture doesn’t make people, people make culture. We have raised ourselves to see the man dominant because he seemed more macho and has that strong manly voice so we tailed ourselves to him. Now we are paying the price under the word feminism.

“If we do something over and over, it becomes normal. If we see the same thing over and over, it becomes normal.”

My problem with feminists, not that they support women rights in specific, but how they support these rights; they want equality, but the real demand should be justice. When demanding for equality they want us to be equal in status and rights to men but they forgot that part of equality is being equal in opportunities (i.e. if men works at coal mines women should have the same opportunity REGARDLESS to their biological structure, which they do not bear this kind of hardship, with some exceptions of course). Justice on the other hand, holds all the meanings of equality as well as following the principle of “Every session has a different discussion”; if women are working at coal mines they either work as managers or work as laborers with LESS WORKING HOURS to fit their biological structure. Some people would think: why women brought up the word feminist at this aggressive way? And why instead of calling for women rights, they call for human rights? Here, Chimamanda responds by saying:

“That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human.”

** On the sideline: Chimamanda you are a beautiful soul.

We Should All Be Feminists  by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

March 15, 2017 – Started Reading
March 15, 2017 – Finished Reading
*I don’t have a cope of the book.


Love Is a Dog from Hell | Review




That old crazy drunk poet who FUCK, GET LAID, HAVE SEX, MAKE LOVE, CRAP, DRINK, HAVE A JOINT THEN MAKE LOVE, HAVE SEX, GET LAID so on and so forth.

“women don’t know how to love,
she told me.
you know how to love
but women just want to
I know this because I’m a

At first, all what I was thinking of is how the hell he become famous? do people dignify sex that much? but I gave the book the benefit of the doubting and continue reading until the end. All what I can say is that I loved the poems when he’s not talking about sex and whores, meanings become wonderful and make that sweet poetic sense.
I should note that his poetry is not rhymed poetry. It is like a poetic story, instead of being written on one line he decided to press the enter button; However, there are particular lines I liked from all his sex and whoring “poems”. On the other hand I fall for some of his REAL POEMS.

“you were once strong enough to live alone.
for a man nearing sixty you should be more

Overall, I can’t say that he writes badly or his poems doesn’t make sense, it do make sense dramatically for him and they are good but I wasn’t expecting something like that.

“human relationships simply aren’t

That crazy poet, knows how to make you stay tuned. I’ll definitely read further from him poems. As for a full poems, I love: an almost made up poem, one for old snaggle-tooth, what they want, how to be a great writer, alone with everybody.

“magic. there’s no lie in her fire.” I loved you
like a man loves a woman he never touches, only
writes to, keeps little photographs of.
your letters got sadder.
your lovers betrayed you. kid, I wrote back, all
lovers betray. it didn’t help. you said
you had a crying bench and it was by a bridge and
the bridge was over a river and you sat on the crying
bench every night and wept for the lovers who had
hurt and forgotten you.
if I had met you
I would probably have been unfair to you or you
to me. it was best like this.”

– an almost made up poem

“I promised to write. she promised to write.
neither of us has written.”

“and we were once great lovers,”

“I need a good woman. I need a good woman
more than I need this typewriter, more than
I need my automobile, more than I need
Mozart; I need a good woman so badly that I
can taste her in the air, I can feel her
at my fingertips, I can see sidewalks built
for her feet to walk upon,
I can see pillows for her head,
I can feel my waiting laughter,
I can see her petting a cat,
I can see her sleeping,
I can see her slippers on the floor.
I know that she exists
but where is she upon this earth”

“don’t worry about rejections, pard,
I’ve been rejected

Love Is a Dog from Hell by Charles Bukowski

February 18, 2017 – Started Reading
February 21, 2017 – Finished Reading

*I don’t have a cope of the book.


The Art of Dying | Review




I was discussing philosophy and talking about philosophers in general with my guru. However, I was expressing my ire for people who claim to be philosophers or claim writing a book under the genre of philosophy or spirituality. In point of fact, they are WAY TOO FAR from being philosophers or having the ability of writing philosophical writings. You can know who I’m talking about when you read a peace or a book for them and suddenly they start talking about religions, god, life, death, so on and so forth. Initiate by comparing two things using prepositions like (as, like …) and they’ll never stop for it’s an ongoing process for all their writings. Their whole “”PHILOSOPHICAL EXPERIENCE”” is based on something being like this or that “Religion/God/Life… etc is like Blah, Blah, Blah”.

Not anyone who discusses life and death can become philosopher, not anyone who’s atheist, monotheistic, polytheistic or a wanderer between religions and in search of god, is or can be a philosopher. It’s absolutely your right to write whatever you think about or believe in, in whichever subject, people do this every single second yet they never claim wisdom or philosophy. Let’s get that in our minds please.
Take Voltaire for example; the saying we’ve been uttering since god knows when (Actions Has Consequences) came from what Voltaire philosophically had said in his book Candied “There is no effect without a cause). Now this is philosophy because it was subject to experience and scrutiny by a man who’s eligible to write philosophy.
What Voltaire said is worthy to be written and taught as well. Certainly, you can’t claim philosophy just by linking words together or trashing things or thinking that you are superior on your peers because you read too many books, being Atheist/agnostic, etc, having friends from different cultures and quoting Nietzsche, Plato, Socrates and many others will make you judicious.

I don’t know how or why, but this whole thing brings me to read The Art of Dying.

Whenever I begin to think this book is actually about THE ART OF DYING, Osho strikes me on the head to tell me it’s about the art of LIFE. When you understand the art of life you will automatically understand the art of dying for they are exceedingly linked to each other. The importance of this book lays in this sentence “The greatest Masters have never said anything about life — they have always thrown you back upon yourself.” As a matter of fact, I’ve applied this sentence on everything. In the matters of life and death, you can’t ask someone to teach you about it or read numerous books to tell you what is life and how is death; it’s all on you to puzzle out.

Does God exist?
Simply, we can’t know whether God exists or not, both atheists and theists are mistaken in their remarks, and rationalists are right simply because they seem Cartesian in this regard, distinct with this the divine undisputed issues, and the objectives of humanitarian questions. We don’t know much about the internal mechanism of the world and that makes any kind of the big complaints about the nature of existence and If there was an incentive presence somewhere or not, a lot of people revert that to The School of Natural – A proposal supposed that the progress of the world is whereby to independent operations – But this does not opposed to the existence of a great founder who linked the movement of all things (Deism). As previously noted, perhaps we are all living in a simulation where there is a programmer (God) controls all assets, or perhaps rationalists are right about the presence of a deep power in the existence, in which we don’t realize. It’s not necessarily to be the omnipotent Lord, the knower of the Abrahamic breed, but (hypothetically) despite this, an existed power. Again this is not a scientific question in itself rather than a platonic intellectual experiences forces us to confront the humanitarian questions.

What would you do if you could solve the MYSTERY of life?
I’ve always thought of this question, and I’ve never find a satisfying answer. What Osho said made it perfectly clear to me; how many people intent on committing a suicide? I wanna pick a specific group whom does it out of the lack of understanding for life, who spent most of their life searching and digging for answers and nothing ever satisfies them or maybe they just didn’t want to be satisfied. Osho said: “That is the meaning of mystery. When we say that life is a mystery, we are saying that life is not a problem. A problem can be solved. A mystery is that which cannot be solved. Insolubility is unbuilt. And it is good that life cannot be solved, otherwise what would you do then? Just think of it. If life is not a mystery and somebody comes and explains it to you — then what will you do? There will be nothing left except to commit suicide. Even that will look meaningless.

A lot of substantial points have been discussed in this eye-opening book. I’ll update this review after a second read for it.

I gave it 4/5 because the whole purport could have been summed up in 80 pages; but Osho persevered emphasizing what he had already emphasized, which was really disturbing.

The Art of Dying by Osho
February 1, 2017 – Started Reading
February 20, 2017 – Finished Reading
*I don’t have a copy of the book.

The Spy | Review

WhatsApp Image 2017-04-25 at 3.52.23 PM
Photo by Voracious Shelf


There are two types of readers: critics and mere readers. To know which one is you, pay attention to what you write in your book review; if you talked about how you felt while reading the book, brought all your culture, religion, race and norms and applied it on the story events, followed by likes and dislikes of the character/s behaviours, believes and thoughts, and went to the extreme by judging the writer for what the character had said. Then I must tell you that you are a mere reader.

But a critic, on the other hand, is the one who sheds light on the aesthetics of the written work or the lack of literary beauty and literary rules, without it being based on prior beliefs, and personal feelings, he’s the one who distinguishes the good from the bad and the ugly from the beautiful. What readers do in their so-called critiques is expressing disapproval of someone or something which is the definition of “Criticism” and that’s exactly what a real critic shouldn’t be doing on any level. We critic to bring interest on something, not to attack nor share hatred.

That’s what peeves me the most when I read people’s reviews on The Spy, especially who gave it 1-3 stars. There are fair number of people who decide whether to read a book or not based on readers review, so when your review is full of personal thoughts and hatred for the author or a specific matter in the book yet and most important, lacks proficiency, then that poor reader WILL NOT READ THE BOOK. So PLEASE, liberate him from the incompetence of your critique and let him read in peace.

As for the dropped subject in the book. Let this review be in “a reader way”. There are two things to point out:
1. Paulo Coelho.
2. Prostitution.

As for Paulo Coelho
I don’t really think that his reputation and way of writing is questionable. He’s a veteran writer, he hasn’t been born yesterday.
So, in this particular book which is based on A TRUE STORY under the genre of HISTORICAL FICTION (I’m sure who gave it 1-3 stars missed that) is not anything like his previous philosophical/romance fictions. It is very natural that the promised style of Paulo Coelho, is not appearing, because most of the events of the novel are taken from the memoirs of Mata Hari. What he did is to re-organize her memoirs and link the events together in smooth and beautiful way. This story is plotted by Mata Hari not Paulo Coelho.
However; I stumbled on a review that said “it was a boring read“. Will that’s exactly what historical readings supposed to make you feel, BORED. But it differs from one person to another, there are people fond of history and historical fictions (like me) and won’t find it boring on any level, and there are people quite the opposite.

This subject hits on my nerves every time I tend to discuss it. As I am absolutely interested in the life of prostitutes (I swear, this word and many others like it, will drive me insane one day). People usually say that prostitution is prostitution, regardless of what causes it. And I say that prostitution is a sheer resultant of a cruel society, bad parenting and poverty, because NO ONE on the god’s green earth (male or female) will accept to striptease or to have nil emotional sex for a group of people or one person out of their own will, unless if there was a personal gain behind it. And in 95% of cases it’s MONEY MONEY MONEY. People want to live, people want to eat and feed their families and they will do absolutely anything and everything for this purpose, and if it was prostitution, so be it.
People will say there must be another thing to do instead of becoming a prostitute. Well, you are absolutely right, but if there were any would they really go and sell themselves?
All this evokes in me what Charles Bukowski have said in his second novel Factotum: I was horrified by life, at what a man had to do simply in order to eat, sleep, and keep himself clothed.
Arabs, find it very difficult to seek an excuse for prostitutes. Whenever the lights are shed on this subject they sincerely pray so she/he is the one who want this for himself out of their own will.
So they no longer have to seek an excuse for them. But it’s quite contrary to what happens, they don’t want that. Ask any prostitute, read any kind of story you like about them, none of them ever mentioned that they have done it out of their own will. Few are those who want to believe that this is a “noble prostitution” I call it that way because of the nobility of abandoning your own body for a higher purpose, which rhymes very well with Machiavelli principle “The end justifies the means.” This saying is not as bad as it’s usually described, as if it were a way to justify any behavior. Let me give an example on that; try to apply it on prostitution:
When talking about rich people snapping souvenir pictures next to wild animals they have hunted, these behaviors get wide boos by most people, with many angry booed messages and comments because it’s acted without any aim except for having fun.
Interestingly, the same people who condemn these actions are often animal meat eaters! How can anyone who decries the killing of an animal somewhere to have the meat of animals at all? The answer is simple: the difference is only in the end. For example, in the case of lions hunting, the end here is just the pleasure of hunting, and that end is not noble or sufficiently important to justify the means, which include the killing of an animal by gunshot. While in the second case, the end is the food, which is important enough to overlook the means used to achieve it.

As for The Spy, all what I have to say about this well knitted novel and lovely woman is that the exotic dancer was shot for spying in World War I, although her guilt was never proven, “Between us, the evidence we had was so poor that it wouldn’t have been fit to punish a cat.” How many times governments have fabricated crimes against people who haven’t committed?
All that evoked sorrow and anger in me, as I remember the tragic death of Alan Turing, who did so much for the sake of humanity and evolution nevertheless; it did not intercede the homosexuality charge that had indicted against him. Poor people have died and will be dying for the greediness and mercilessness of governments and covering for the senior heads in the States. How cruel it is to witness all this without being able to lift a finger.

She must have been a talented dancer yet a very charming face and definitely an ardent spirit.

” instead of justice there was wickedness, instead of righteousness, there was yet more wickedness… but god will judge them all, both the righteous and the wicked, god will judge them both, for there is a time for every intention, a time for every deed.”

“Fearlessly paying the price she had to pay.”

“””IT IS A 4.5“””

The Spy by Paulo Coelho

February 26, 2017 – Started Reading
March 1, 2017 – Finished Reading

*I have a copy of the book.

WhatsApp Image 2017-04-25 at 3.52.22 PM
Photo by Voracious Shelf