History is full of tales of characters who share similar stories. For example, the legendary birth story of Sargon of Akkad (also known as Sargon the Great), who died in 2279 BC and who is regarded as being the first person in recorded history to rule over an empire, resembles a lot the birth stories of Moses (a Hebrew prophet), Karna (a major character in the Hindu epic Mahabharata), and Oedipus (a mythical Greek king of Thebes). Similarly, the birth and life story of Jesus resembles very much the birth and life stories of many Christ-like figures, such as Buddha, Krishna, Romulus, Dionysus, Zoroaster, Horus, etc.

Most history books suggest that each one of the aforementioned individuals exercised significant influence across a territorial region, either antemortem or posthumous. In addition, each one of the aforementioned individuals either glorified himself to divine levels or claimed to be the product of divine inspiration (i.e., a messenger from God, a prophet from God, an incarnation of God, etc.).

The instructions, stories, poetry, prophecies, and other genres attributed to the aforementioned individuals provide an accurate and trustworthy direction for salvation and spiritual practice, yet most people throughout history refused to rely on this guidance to live a pure life. Since the date people began to keep written records, new people, from one generation to the next, sought to achieve true happiness by relying on their personal power and conscience instead of the standards that those aforementioned individuals and many others legitimized. Many historians regard Nimrod, a biblical figure mentioned in Genesis (10:8-12), as a symbol of such manifest destiny. In fact, historians suggest that Nimrod, which means “rebellion,” led those who got together to build the city of Babel and its tower that is mentioned in Genesis. The building of the Tower of Babel symbolizes humanity’s first major defiance or rebellion against God’s authority after the story of the flood. Nimrod sought to legitimize power structures that seek to glorify human power or self-exaltation over God’s supremacy.

.

Most people, especially rulers and kings, have defied God’s rule from Nimrod’s time to today, believing they can reject God’s instruction to distinguish between good and evil, as suggested in Genesis, and avoid consequences. In Genesis, it is suggested that after God created the first two human beings, he instructed them to not distinguish between good and evil, for when they do, they will certainly die (Genesis 2:17), but that man defied God (Genesis 3:6-7).

Unfortunately, since the time when God’s first creations defied Him and began to profit from their newfound wisdom, humanity has been struggling with an obstacle from which it has not yet found an escape. This obstacle centers on humans coexisting or working to achieve justice in a world where the only permanent thing in it is change. Living in a world of constant change requires everyone who wants to disregard God’s counsel and reject distinguishing between good and evil to dedicate themselves to living a life of lifting, hoping that the ideas they would be giving up will help them gain understanding and encourage others to transcend limitations for better things.

The struggle mentioned earlier, where the fittest impose their will on the weak to compel them to surrender their freedom to his convictions instead of the ideas that are suggested in religious and philosophical texts, could serve as a valid explanation for the numerous stories in our history of individuals whose lives and teachings exhibit striking parallels. This parallel always pointed to the existence of justice in reality despite all the efforts that the fittest carry out to discredit its existence in faith, culture, and practice. However, the question that remains unanswered is this: can the fittest generate new ideas that would enable him to exert full control over the weak when he relies on concepts that open the eyes of the weak or elevate his knowledge to levels that the weak cannot naturally resist changing?

I have no way of knowing how the heirs of the old powers are concluding that their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions), along with technology, can distance people from God’s suggestion in Genesis to avoid death (i.e., destruction), given that humans naturally cannot prevent words from changing their minds or convictions. What I do know is that in the literature it is suggested that the Romans “attributed their success as a world power to their collective piety in maintaining good relations with the gods.”

Once again, I have no way of knowing what the aforementioned statement means. What I do know is that historians suggest that the Roman religion was practical and contractual, exemplified by the phrase “do ut des (I give that you might give).” This phrase signifies an agreement based on giving and taking. If the Roman relations with the gods were based on carrying sacrifices in the hope of receiving favor or security in return, this means that the Roman religion must have also depended on “knowledge and the correct practice of prayer, rite, and sacrifice, not on faith or dogma.”

I have no way of knowing why the Roman Empire became severely destabilized until finally collapsing if, according to the literature, the Romans were devout people. In my opinion, the Romans must have established a rule within their social order that led to a transformation, causing people to rebel against one another and ultimately contributing to their decline and fall.

Once again, I have no way of knowing what rule the rulers of the Roman Empire introduced in the social order so that the transformation (change) that its effect was creating caused people to rebel against each other, leading to their decline and fall. What I do know is that the Quran suggests the Israelites did not differ among themselves in antiquity except until knowledge came to them. [Surah Yunus 93]

Humans create change constantly, and therefore, the knowledge that results from the change that people carry out is limitless. I have no way of knowing what specific rule the Romans began to trade among themselves, so this knowledge led to citizens being in favor of distancing themselves from the practical relations that they were depending on to stay united to the point of defying the centralized power structures that existed in the empire, except to attribute this decline to seeking human glory over divine as Nimrod did before his downfall.

For example, Nimrod chose to turn people away from their deities and encouraged the construction of a centralized power structure that defied God and sought human glory over the divine rather than allowing them to maintain their relationships with their gods. Accordingly, after Nimrod failed to figure out if rights establish power or if power establishes rights, the disregard that his deeds were creating led to his ultimate collapse.

The families/dynasties that were controlling the Roman Empire acted in the same way Nimrod did before his collapse. Instead of preserving the religious methods that their ancestors followed to define the nature of the divine and its relationship to human affairs, the families and dynasties that controlled the Roman Empire chose to dishonor those practices and adopt a centralized, God-bowing power structure known as Christianity in the year 380 AD. This new power structure, which bowed to God and was called Christianity, prioritized the divine over the human. This new religion makes the question of justice become a research subject and an entitlement, instead of continuing to be a “godly” entitlement.

The universal religious order established by the families/dynasties that were controlling the Roman Empire in 380 AD aimed to ensure that all individuals competing for power in the realm would develop the necessary understanding to create conditions of stability; however, it failed to produce the anticipated level of cooperation across the vast territory of the empire. In the year 395 AD, only fifteen years after Christianity became the official state religion, the families and dynasties controlling the Roman Empire were required to split the empire into western and eastern halves to manage the cultural drift that was occurring.

Evidently, the decision of the families/dynasties that were controlling the Roman Empire to ignore the impact of letting their critical thinkers and servants (kings, rulers, chiefs, judges, public officials, etc.) regard themselves exempt from observing the standards of justice included in the Christian faith and the impact of permitting citizens to research how to secure the standards of justice that Christianity promised clashed in each empire differently. The Western Empire collapsed in 476 AD, while the Eastern Empire endured until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

The families/dynasties that were controlling the Roman Empire chose to see religion as a source of social order while deliberately ignoring the impact of changes caused by popular rhetoric and slogans of justice; this choice failed to produce the political expectations or guidance they hoped to gain by making Christianity the official state religion. The failure of the families/dynasties that controlled the Roman Empire to balance relationships, rights, and opportunities, along with the resulting disruption, motivated people to rely on their self-help to increase their happiness rather than to support the agenda of those families/dynasties.

The heirs of the old powers should have learned from Nimrod and the Roman Empire and avoided linking their expansionism or revival to a divine destiny, but they didn’t.

Instead of adhering to their fathers’ advice to allow people to practice the religious doctrines of their choice after World War II, the heirs of the old powers chose to introduce a new monotheistic religion, which they named the Abrahamic religion, hoping it would merge the beliefs of various cults into one set of shared religious doctrines.

Indeed, grouping several religious faiths primarily found in the Western Hemisphere, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, under a new religion could be a beneficial way to reduce the number of world religions to just a few. This new development would also divide the world into two religious halves. The western half would be practicing the Abrahamic religion, and the eastern half would be practicing the Indian, Iranian, and East Asian religions.

However, when the Roman Empire dishonored its polytheistic religion and simplified it into a single faith, it failed to identify common ground among the various cults that had been oversimplified, even after dividing the empire into two distinct political entities. The cultural drift, economic differences, and administrative inefficiency caused by the selective application of Christian values in the political order of the empire led to a decline in the power of the families/dynasties that were controlling the Roman Empire, ultimately reverting them to a simpler form over time. Can the heirs of the old powers struggle to rejuvenate their power and avoid confronting the same downfall that awaited Nimrod or the families/dynasties that were controlling the Roman Empire after they decided to dishonor the methods or ways that their fathers were depending on to describe through their principles the nature of the divine and its relation to human affairs and switched and began to depend on new methods to sustain their dominant power?

I do not know the answer to the aforementioned question. What I do know is that if the families/dynasties that were controlling the Roman Empire had ensured that their critical thinkers and servants (chiefs, judges, priests, bankers, public officials, etc.) adhered to the religious standards they had legitimized after they made Christianity the official state religion, they could have used this tool to successfully undermine cultural identities and particularities and avoid their downfall. If the insecurity that has plagued the world since 1945 is due to the critical thinkers and servants (chiefs, judges, priests, bankers, public officials, etc.) of the heirs of the old powers (the families/dynasties that control the international order and the money supply of the world) refusing to adhere to the principles suggested in the UN Charter or the UDHR and considering themselves exempt from such appeals, how can we be certain that their powers would not be severely destabilized further? In addition to their existing problems, are they asking people to unify their beliefs under a single religion?

Once again, I do not know the answer to the aforementioned question. What I do know is that if the heirs of the old powers continue to struggle to control the weak by denying them rights, they will inevitably stumble upon the one permanent truth in the world: change. If change invites contradictions, how do the heirs of the old powers expect their successors to avoid the fate of the families and dynasties that once controlled the Roman Empire if they continue to replace existing systems with new ones?

I do not know the answer to the aforementioned question. What I do know is that in the Quran, in Surah Yunus, verse 24, it is suggested that the life of this world is just like rain. Rain enhances the earth’s appearance. However, when people believe they have complete control over the world, God’s command, whether it arrives by night or by day, gradually diminishes it, as if it had never flourished in the first place.

Can the heirs of the old powers avoid having their influence diminished while new families and dynasties begin to play their role, after allowing their critical thinkers and servants (such as governments, security institutions, and international organizations) to alter the nature of the divine instead of securing the outcomes suggested in the UN Charter or the UDHR? Evidently, in the same way, a new age answered this question when the families/dynasties that were controlling the Roman Empire were doing so in antiquity (changing the nature of the divine instead of practicing Christianity); only a future age can answer if the decision of the heirs of the old powers to have their critical thinkers and servants oversimplify existing faith instead of making them practice the work program suggested in the UN Charter or the UDHR would revert them to a simpler form as quickly as the Western Roman Empire fell or if their fall would follow the same long process of decline that happened to the Eastern Roman Empire.