The discussion about globalization has been extensive, depicting the world as a small village, emphasizing the communications revolution that grants contemporary humans unprecedented freedom (freedom for what?). It claims historical transparency, suggesting everything is now accessible to everyone, along with a new global order signaling the end of history!!! Also, there's the clash of civilizations, presumably ending in favor of the victorious civilization, assuming American civilization has triumphed, if it ever existed!!

All of this seems to have diverted our attention from what truly matters: the crucial question after all of this, which is: Where to? (and) So what?

As we ponder this, we don't object, reserve judgment, or set conditions on benefiting from the achievements of this globalization. Instead, we strive to elevate our awareness and actions to be responsible for our existence and its quality. If we choose to honor what God has bestowed upon us—consciousness of who we are—then we contribute to choosing what we can become.

Bill Gates concluded his book "The Road Ahead" in 1995 (translated as "Informatics After the Internet") with a hopeful vision, stating, "And surely we can continue to provide better and better software to make personal computers an empowering tool for everyone, everywhere." However, he did not clarify what this empowerment tool is for or what it aims to achieve.

Similarly, authors Hans-Peter Martin and Harald Schumann concluded their book "The Global Trap" with ten brilliant ideas to save Europe from the stupidity of (American) globalization, not to save humanity from possible extinction. These European ideas the authors proposed seemed very idealistic, particularly tailored to Europe, hopeful yet short-term.

I followed the efforts of Dr. Zagazig and Dr. Mohamed Raouf Hamed in reconciling Islam and globalization on one hand, and nationalism and globalization on the other hand. However, despite my gratitude towards them, I felt that their efforts might need to go further than they did.

I will avoid focusing on the differences between Eastern culture (backward!! or emotional!! or Eastern) and Western and Northern cultures (advanced, affluent, achieving prosperity) because this file is always open and the discussion is usually misguided (such as using the recent Colorado massacre as an indicator of the West's decline, etc.).

Similarly, I won't attempt to list the virtues of ethics that we enjoy, can be proud of, or should possess. Such calls are indisputable in their importance, as it is incumbent upon humans to be of great character, whether by reviving the teachings of their religion or by following human rights agreements. However, what is required is not pride contests or vilification, nor even attempts at reconciliation and commitment with a degree of objectivity. Rather, what is needed is an attempt at initial questioning:

Are there fundamental differences regarding the "quality of life" they point to, and the quality of life that suits us based on our historical and current differences, which they may need most (to us) if we succeed in proving the quality and suitability of what we call upon and in achieving the path towards it for the benefit of humans in general? Or did the globalization they advocate completely eliminate these differences?

Petros Ghali says regarding globalization as Secretary of the United Nations: "There is not one globalization, but many globalizations. For example, there is globalization in information, drugs, epidemics, and the environment, and of course, in finance as well." Ghali also speaks about transnational crimes as he does about transnational money, but perhaps as a precaution rather than negligence, he does not refer to religious globalization, monotheistic globalization, moral ethics transcending borders, or existential faith transcending borders.

Dostoevsky also addressed the presence of God in the consciousness of the Karamazov brothers, directly or indirectly declaring that this variable—the presence of God in awareness at all its levels—is fundamental in building character and thus determining the quality of life. With its current presence in daily action, Ivan Karamazov's atheist was almost equivalent to, "If humanity loses this belief in immortality, it will soon embitter all the springs of love," and more than that, "everything will be contrary to ethics," or Dmitry Karamazov thought, "If you deny God, you will end up raising the price of meat," etc.

Also, Naguib Mahfouz insisted on this issue with determination and perseverance from the first "Zaabalawi" to "The Harafish" to "Echoes of an Autobiography," passing through "The Road" without excluding "Children of Our Alley." He listened to Omar El-Hamzawi in "Al-Shahaz" as he listened to that voice blaming him at the end of the novel, "If you want me, why did you leave me?" Mahfouz must realize where he placed this issue as a center to determine the quality of human existence, and all this and more suggest that we should insist on discovering and confirming a fundamental truth in human existence that says:

The existence of God is a vital necessity for humans to be human, and this issue cannot be merely a quasi-logical or a remote religious surrender.

And I will not elaborate further on this issue so as not to deviate from the original purpose of the article, which says:

As we continue this continuous indulgence in "empowerment tools" provided by globalized means of life, we must consider this basic variable; otherwise, we will be drawn into accepting the position of belief and faith as optional add-ons (like car accessories) that can be adorned at times under the guise of religion is for God and the nation is for everyone, or what is for Caesar is for Caesar and what is for God is for God, and similar rhetoric deceives us under the illusion of false tolerance that does not reach the depth of the reality of human communication under the umbrella of God, praise be to Him, throughout all time.

I argue that this issue (the presence of God as an active variable at all times) is the essence that we should take care of using all the tools, channels of experiences, knowledge, and the latest sciences to program it in a way that distinguishes us humans. At the same time, it may add to their needs what can save them from their illusions about focusing on ensuring prosperity, increasing quantitative competition, and dispensing with God by pointing to the possibility of His existence in their artistic creations, which I do not deny their distinction.

Human life differs qualitatively if God is present in it all the time, whether we acknowledge Him or keep Him away or define times for His presence during worship or holidays or even single or communal prayer times! Perhaps this, in my opinion, is the difference between existential Islam and exiled or diminished Islam, or the Islam used from the surface to assume authority, declare guardianship, suppress thought, and also between natural Islam and the distortions that have affected the practices of established Islam, and other religions that are practiced as a good addition to life at times for those who want it!!!

The living history of evolution teaches us that any species becomes extinct if there is an excessive disparity between its domains of existence, its types of abilities, its nature, and its current circumstances. Similarly, it faces extinction due to the lack of harmony between its needs and the surrounding environment, just as we learn from the lessons of the extinction of dinosaurs, for example, when there was an excessive disparity between the size of their bodies, the small size of their brains, and the speed of their movement. Between that and what globalization tools present to us, which almost places us in a similar situation as we face a potential mismatch between the speed of obtaining information and the possibility of absorbing it for the benefit of humans to it, which equals the decline of apparent calculations for deeper social perceptions.

Do we have any position, history, or difference that can contribute to achieving the required balance in this?

The answer from my stubborn (or negligent) stance is yes, we do.

Human life differs fundamentally if God is present in it all the time, if He is not.

I imagine the issue as follows:

There are two basic types of human existence that can be achieved by the religious (or claimed) and the non-religious (or imagined):

The first type stands proudly, or arrogantly, at the highest point above the human's hill, with his mind and his tools shining. (Most often, it represents North American Western technological civilization, etc.)

The second type is represented by monotheistic communicative civilizations, extending into infinity from their existence, clear-minded, and with limited mechanical obedience. The possibilities undoubtedly.

These two types of existence differ fundamentally, so that life is dyed with a different flavor for those who live this type or that, despite the similarity of tools and available possibilities.

I imagine that our existence as Egyptians, for example, extending from thousands of years, tugging at immortality, revolving around monotheism, still represents or can represent the first type. I also imagine that all believers from all religions, that natural first faith that appears in different religious practices, intertwined, and bound in belief, also belong to this first type of existence. The second type is that represented by the Western North American civilization, despite some signs of awakening recently, a beautiful type of glitter, abundant welfare, many written treaties, wonderful achievement, satisfaction with realistic certainties that freed him from releasing his deeper awareness spread through humans and through the universes.

The fact of the permanent presence of God in every place and time is a fact that does not manifest itself daily. ...

I claim that this issue (the presence of God at all times) is the essence that we should consider using all the tools and channels of experience, knowledge, and the latest sciences to program it in a way that distinguishes us humans. At the same time, it may add to their needs what can save them from their illusions about focusing on ensuring prosperity, increasing quantitative competition, and dispensing with God by pointing to the possibility of His existence in their artistic creations, which I do not deny their distinction.