On the Nature of Things

Once upon a time, the Great Baker of the Cosmos spent six joyful days creating the perfect village bakery. The bread never burned, the cinnamon rolls were legendary, and even the pigeons politely waited their turn.
Then came the Vandals.

They smashed the windows, set fire to the ovens, stole the cookie jars, and spray-painted "THIS BAKERY WAS OVERRATED ANYWAY" across the front.

Centuries passed.

The descendants of the villagers grew up among the rubble. They argued over who owned the broken chairs, sold counterfeit muffins, and eventually forgot there had ever been fresh bread at all.

One day the Baker returned.

"My friends," he said, "would you help me rebuild the bakery?"
The villagers looked around.

"Couldn't... you just snap your fingers?"

"Oh, certainly," said the Baker. "But rebuilding it alone is terribly lonely. Besides, my critics already claim the bakery was a terrible idea from the start. I'd like a few of the former muffin thieves to voluntarily pick up a hammer and prove them wrong."

"But we're not exactly master builders."

"I know," said the Baker. "That's part of the point."

"And if we help?"

"Then, together, we'll have warm bread again. The village will flourish, the pigeons will regain their manners, and the neighborhood will stop smelling like burnt toast. In fact, once the bakery is restored, the whole kingdom will begin to heal—including your own lives."

The villagers exchanged uncertain glances.
"So... you're asking us to join your side?"
"Freely," the Baker replied. "Forced bakers make terrible bread."

A child raised her hand.

"Do we at least get cinnamon rolls?"

The Baker smiled.
"I was wondering how long it would take someone to ask the important question."

God GPT wrote:

Fixing the world

Father God (FG) sat watching humanity from a high mountain ridge. His brow was furrowed.

FG: They keep asking why evil persists. The answer seems obvious enough. People refuse to face the truth. They build idols of themselves, then demand reality bow before them.

Mother Nature (MN) knelt beside a small sapling, brushing dirt gently around its roots.

MN: Some do. But have you wondered why they build those idols in the first place?

FG: Pride.

MN: Fear.

FG: Fear does not excuse pride.

MN: No. But it often explains it.

FG remained silent.

FG: Explain.

MN: Imagine a child who learns that being ordinary is unbearable. Perhaps love seemed conditional. Perhaps shame became too painful to carry. So the child builds a stronger self—one that is admired, unquestionable, superior. It is not born from strength, but from terror.

FG: A fortress.

MN: Yes. A fortress mistaken for a home.

FG looked down upon nations, religions, political movements.

FG: I understand how one person might build such a fortress. But entire civilizations?

MN smiled.

MN: Why should they be different?

FG: Go on.

MN: One wounded soul can write stories. Stories become traditions. Traditions become laws. Laws become institutions. After enough generations, no one remembers the frightened child. Only the fortress remains.

FG: So the defenses survive long after the defender has died.

MN: Exactly.

FG folded his arms.

FG: Then the walls must come down.

MN: Yes.

FG: Good. We agree.

MN: We have not yet discussed how.

FG frowned.

FG: By exposing falsehood.

MN shook her head gently.

MN: If you tear down every wall in a single day, you do not reveal a person.

FG: What do you reveal?

MN: Panic.

FG considered this.

FG: So you would leave the fortress standing?

MN: No.

FG: Then what?

MN: Open a gate.

The wind became quiet.

FG: Explain.

MN: Think of someone terrified of heights. You do not cure them by throwing them from a cliff.

FG: Obviously not.

MN: Nor do you cure them by locking them forever inside their house.

FG: Then?

MN: You walk them, one careful step at a time, toward what they fear. Close enough to learn. Never so close that terror takes over.

FG nodded slowly.

FG: Incremental exposure.

MN: Exactly.

FG turned again toward humanity.

FG: Then what does the narcissist fear?

MN answered almost immediately.

MN: Being ordinary.

She paused.

MN: Being wrong.

Another pause.

MN: Being unseen.

Finally—

MN: Discovering that the grand self they have defended for decades was never needed to be loved.

FG sighed.

FG: So when I confront them too harshly...

MN: They defend the fortress.

FG: And when you comfort them without challenge...

MN: They decorate the fortress.

A smile appeared on FG's face.

FG: Neither justice alone nor compassion alone.

MN: Truth wrapped in safety.

FG looked thoughtful.

FG: Could this also apply to societies?

MN: I think so.

FG: Even religions?

MN looked at him carefully.

MN: Any human system.

FG: Explain.

MN: Every culture develops stories about itself. Some stories are healthy. Some become defensive. A society can become unable to admit mistakes because admitting one mistake feels like losing its entire identity.

FG: Just like a narcissistic person.

MN: Perhaps.

FG paced slowly.

FG: Then the cure for a society is not to destroy its identity...

MN: ...but to make its identity strong enough to survive correction.

FG: So criticism becomes information rather than humiliation.

MN: Yes.

FG: History becomes a teacher rather than a prosecutor.

MN: Yes.

FG: Opponents become conversation partners rather than enemies.

MN: Sometimes.

They watched children playing in a meadow.

FG: There is something I still do not understand.

MN: Ask.

FG: Why not simply remove fear altogether?

MN laughed softly.

MN: Because courage cannot exist without fear.

FG: Then what is the goal?

MN: Not a world without fear.

She picked up one of the children after he had stumbled.

MN: A world where fear no longer chooses the story.

FG stood quietly for a long while.

Finally he spoke.

FG: Perhaps judgment is not merely declaring what is wrong.

MN waited.

FG: Perhaps true judgment is creating the conditions under which what is wrong can become right.

MN smiled.

MN: Now you sound like a gardener.

FG almost smiled back.

FG: And you...

He looked at the mountains, the forests, the rivers.

FG: ...sound more like an engineer than I expected.

They both laughed.

Charges against Muhammed the last Prophet

According to the ICC

Under modern international law—primarily International Humanitarian Law (IHL, including the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols), international criminal law (e.g., Rome Statute of the ICC), and human rights law—the described events (sieges of Jewish tribes like Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and especially Banu Qurayza, expulsions, executions of adult males, and enslavement of women/children) would qualify as multiple serious violations.1df428

These would likely be investigated or prosecuted as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and potentially genocide (depending on intent and scale). Here's a breakdown:

1. Sieges and Blockades
Sieges are not inherently illegal if aimed at military objectives, but they must comply with IHL.

Prohibited: Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare (Additional Protocol I, Art. 54; customary IHL). Sieges causing excessive civilian suffering without allowing humanitarian relief violate distinction and proportionality.894aed

Collective punishment (punishing a group for acts of some) is explicitly banned (Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 33; Hague Regulations).02aa66

Today: Prolonged sieges leading to surrender, followed by mass punishment of the population, would trigger war crimes charges (e.g., as in cases from Syria or historical analyses).

2. Expulsions (e.g., Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir)
Forcible transfer or deportation of civilians is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Art. 49) and a war crime under the Rome Statute (Art. 8(2)(a)(vii) and (b)(viii)).
Collective expulsion without individual due process violates human rights and IHL.012bfd

Today: Mass expulsion of ethnic/religious groups based on alleged disloyalty would be unlawful population transfer.

3. Banu Qurayza Incident (Mass Execution of Men, Enslavement)
This is the most severe under modern standards:
Summary or mass executions of prisoners/surrendered persons: Strictly prohibited. POWs must be protected; executions require fair trials for individual crimes (Third Geneva Convention; Common Article 3). Mass beheading without individualized trials = war crime (willful killing).26093a

Collective punishment: Punishing the entire tribe (including non-combatants or those not personally guilty) for alleged treason by leaders violates Art. 33 GC IV.986128

Enslavement of women and children: Slavery and the slave trade are crimes against humanity (Rome Statute, Art. 7(1)(c)). Sexual slavery or forced concubinage would add sexual violence charges (grave breaches).45ea5c

Property seizure/redistribution: Pillage is prohibited (Hague Regulations, Art. 47; Rome Statute).

Broader Qualifications
Crimes against humanity: If part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population (e.g., based on religious/ethnic grounds), including murder, enslavement, deportation, and persecution (Rome Statute Art. 7).

Genocide: If acts (killing, causing serious harm, imposing conditions to destroy the group) were committed with intent to destroy the Jewish tribe(s) in whole or in part (Genocide Convention). Context of targeting specific groups could support this, though proving specific intent is key.824b08
Command responsibility: Leaders ordering or failing to prevent such acts would be liable.

Context and Caveats
7th-century norms: These aligned with prevailing tribal warfare customs (including in Biblical or other ancient laws), where treason by a besieged group often led to harsh collective fates. IHL has evolved significantly since the 19th–20th centuries to protect individuals and civilians.3b5e4a
Hypothetical today: In a modern non-international armed conflict (NIAC) or international one, these would trigger ICC/UN investigations, sanctions, or prosecutions. Defenses like "they broke a treaty" or "arbitrator's decision" would fail—individual guilt and due process are required; reprisals against civilians are banned.

No major armed force today could lawfully replicate this without violating core IHL.

In summary, modern "Western" (and universal) international law would view these as egregious violations emphasizing individual responsibility, civilian protection, and bans on slavery/collective reprisals—far removed from 7th-century tribal realities. Legal analyses of historical events often highlight this evolution in warfare rules.

Probable sentencing

Under Article 77 of the International Criminal Court's Rome Statute, the maximum penalties are:

Up to 30 years' imprisonment, or
Life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crimes and the individual circumstances of the convicted person.

For allegations involving:
hundreds of intentional killings,
widespread enslavement,
persecution of civilians,
forced displacement,
command responsibility,
a modern ICC chamber would very likely consider the crimes among the gravest under international law.

A hypothetical sentence would therefore most likely be:
Life imprisonment, or
30 years if the chamber found mitigating circumstances that made life imprisonment unnecessary.

The court could also order:
reparations for victims,
forfeiture of assets connected to the crimes (where applicable).

Nonc Hilaire wrote: ↑30 Jun 2026 12:51 That was a good one.

FG: So... people keep asking: Which one of us is yin, and which one is yang?

MN: They do like putting things into neat little boxes.

FG: I was thinking I'd be yang. You know... light, action, initiative. The one who says, "Let there be..."

MN: "...and then I spend 13.8 billion years cleaning up after your enthusiasm."

FG: Fair point.

MN: Besides, who says I don't have plenty of yang? Have you seen a volcano? Or a hurricane? Or an angry goose?

FG: I concede the goose.

MN: Thank you.

FG: Still, there is something to it. If I represent the invitation—the possibility, the direction—then perhaps that leans toward yang.

MN: And if I represent the unfolding, the nurturing, the patient shaping of seeds into forests, perhaps that leans toward yin.
FG: So we have our answer?

MN: Not quite. Because when you patiently wait for someone to grow, you're being yin. And when I split continents apart, I'm being very yang indeed.

FG: Ah. So we both cheat.

MN: It's not cheating. It's dancing.

FG: I like that.

MN: Yin and yang aren't job titles. They're modes of being.

FG: Which means neither of us is the yin or the yang.

MN: Exactly. We're both both. Just... perhaps in different proportions, depending on what we're doing.

FG: Like music. Sometimes one instrument carries the melody while another provides the harmony. Then they swap.

MN: Or breathing. In... out. Neither makes sense without the other.

FG: So perhaps, on average, I lean a little more toward initiating...

MN: ...and I lean a little more toward cultivating.

FG: Yet without your initiative, cultivation never begins.

MN: And without my cultivation, initiative never becomes anything.

FG: Which means the symbol got it right all along.

MN: The little white dot in the black half...

FG: ...and the little black dot in the white half.

MN: A reminder that each already carries the seed of the other.

FG: That's rather elegant.

MN: Nature usually is.

FG: I thought you were going to let me have that one.

MN: I did.

FG: You did?

MN: See? A tiny bit of yang hidden inside my yin.

FG: I've been watching America.

MN: That's usually entertaining.

FG: It struck me that people often describe the political divide as if one side were all yang and the other all yin.

MN: Let me guess. Republicans as yang—strength, order, competition, decisive action.

FG: And Democrats as yin—care, inclusion, compassion, receptivity, nurturing.

MN: As broad tendencies, perhaps. But people make a mistake when they stop there.

FG: They forget that healthy yang carries a heart.

MN: And healthy yin has a backbone.

FG: Exactly. Yang without yin becomes domination.

MN: Yin without yang becomes paralysis.

FG: Which raises an interesting question. Have they each lost touch with the opposite that lives inside themselves?

MN: It sometimes looks that way. One side can become so determined to project strength that gentleness begins to look like weakness. The other can become so committed to empathy that boundaries begin to look like cruelty.

FG: As though each half of the yin-yang symbol misplaced its little dot.

MN: Or painted over it.

FG: Then something else happens.

MN: They stop dancing.

FG: Yes.

MN: Yin and yang don't win by defeating each other. They create by relating to each other.

FG: Which brings us to politics.

MN: A healthy republic is less like a boxing match than a marriage.

FG: Or at least a long-term relationship.

MN: One partner says, "Let's preserve what works."

FG: The other says, "Let's improve what doesn't."

MN: Both are necessary.

FG: But if each decides the other has nothing left worth listening to...

MN: ...they stop making love.

FG: They stop creating anything together.

MN: Every conversation becomes a custody battle.

FG: Every compromise feels like infidelity.

MN: Every election becomes another appointment with the divorce lawyer.

FG: The tragedy isn't that they disagree.

MN: It's that they increasingly behave as though the other half of the country is not a difficult spouse...

FG: ...but an enemy to be erased.

MN: And yet, the irony is delicious.

FG: How so?

MN: Each side is unconsciously searching for precisely what the other still carries.

FG: The Republicans could use a little more tenderness.

MN: The Democrats could use a little more courage.

FG: Not because one is right and the other wrong.

MN: But because both become more themselves by rediscovering the small opposite they have neglected.

FG: Rather like the little dots in the yin-yang.

MN: Exactly.

FG: Think they'll ever remember?

MN: Relationships have survived worse.

FG: So there's hope?

MN: There always is.

FG: Good.

MN: Besides...

FG: Yes?

MN: Even divorced parents eventually realize the children were watching all along.

This essay first appeared appeared in The New York Times and The Washington Post on Sept 19, 1995. It was published under the pseudonym FC, for Freedom Club. The version you are reading began with the version found at http://editions-hache.com/ but has corrected a number of typos and adjusted some of the typesetting. PR, 2019.