وأيوب إذ نادى ربه أني مسني الضر--تلاوة للشيخ زيد البحري

My grandmother passed away in Damascus this afternoon. To God we belong and to Him we shall return.

.

جاى الدور عليكم كلكم

The strange ramblings of Qaddafi in 2008 at the Arab Summit in Damascus. Almost prophetic and very interesting to listen to now that he himself might be facing a similar fate albeit at the hands of his own people.

.

ام كلثوم - انا الشعب

This song has been playing on al Jazeera during its breaks. It is by Umm Kalthoum, the famous Egyptian diva, and it is called "I Am the People". I can't stop playing it.

.

Syria - Why?

In October I wrote about the case of a 19-year old female blogger who was arrested on vague charges in Syria. My views on her actions are clear, but I criticise heavily the way she is being treated, and for what? According to al Jazeera English Tal al Mollouhi was arrested because she released information that led to the assault and serious injury of a Syrian army officer in Cairo. The Syrian Higher State Security Court has just sentenced her to five years in prison but the charges are vague and the proceedings were held in a closed court.

Perhaps it is all false and the entire affair is trumped up, then again perhaps not. The problem is that the Syrian public has not been given any information to make its own mind up. "Security" concerns are no longer sufficient to justify ignoring the rule of law and treating people as if they are subjects or cattle. Syria is not a jungle, it is not Mubarak's Egypt, so why is this happening? Why can an Arab citizen not point their finger at something and ask "why"?

Nobody has been told why this girl was arrested two years ago, when she was 17. More importantly, why would a 17 year old girl have information that would compromise a Syrian officer. In light of such an enormous security lapse, why is the future and life of a schoolgirl being destroyed when it has not even been made clear that she did what she did malicously, let alone did it at all. If we are to take the official narrative at face value, why are those responsible for such an enormous security lapse, one which undermines the security of Syria, to a 17 year old school girl not being held responsible? Why should I feel nervous about asking these questions as I type this on my blog? Why can nobody ask certain very rich individuals in Syria how they got their money, or their cars, or their lands and villas, or their businesses. Why and why and why? Why should we keep being treated like this?

The silence remains deafening...

.

Thoughts on Libya and Bahrain

I know very little about Bahrain and next to nothing about Libya, but I do know when something does not look like it will wind down. The revolutions in these two countries are not getting coverage anywhere near as intensive as that of the Egyptian revolution, but it certainly looks to me like the protestors could very well get their way if they keep their firm resolve. The question is what would a country without the al Khalifas or the Ghaddafis look like?

Well I know that in Bahrain that would mean a Shia-led government which is more than likely to be very sympathetic with Iran. The reaction of Saudi Arabia to this will be very interesting indeed, as will be the reaction of Britain and the United States, to whom this small island is extremely important. Iran is wisely keeping its mouth shut about what is happening in Bahrain, as anything it says can be used immediately for propaganda purposes by the Bahraini government and those who wish it to remain in power. As for Libya, who knows...

.

جفنهً علم الغزل

This is one of the songs for Muhammad Abdul Wahhab that I absolutely adore. Filmed in 1933, the first thing that I find amazing is how it begins with the two women balancing jugs on their head as they walk past. That instantly brings the famous Egyptian countryside to life. At one point we get a glimpse of an Egyptian field, and we can see shadows from the clouds moving across, shadows from almost 80 years ago. The scene cuts to the girl standing in the middle of the field, beautiful and timid, looking around as if searching for someone. Finally the clip where she hops across a little ditch and then marches daintily off screen is to die for. She is like an Alice in Wonderland, portrayed through the eyes of Abdul Wahhab. There is something else that is hauntingly beautiful about this clip that I can't put my finger on, I'm not a film critic. Musically, I'm enchanted by the melody and the words. It is playful and different from anything else that was around at the time, and probably since. As for the young Muhammad Abdul Wahhab, we see a handsome, graceful young man dressed impeccably and with a fez on his head, as any respectable Arab gentleman would do back then. We might as well be seeing him alive and in front of us today. The overall effect of the clip with the music is nothing short of magical. Enjoy, late on a Wednesday night.

.

The Counter-Revolution in Iran - and the death of revolution in Bahrain, Yemen and Algeria

The loss of the Mubarak regime in Egypt was a bitter pill to swallow for the United States, but that will never mean that it won't be useful at some stage. Secretary of State Clinton has praised the young protestors and used forceful language against the Iranian government. Clinton said she "supported the universal human rights of the Iranian people". As if on cue, Western media begin extensive coverage of the Iranian protests in a way that they did not do for Egypt. That was partly because the Egyptian protests caught everybody by surprise, but also because Mubarak is a favourite of the West, admired for bringing 'stability' to the region. On the other hand, most people in the Arab world viewed Mubarak as complicit in a criminal seige against the Palestinians in Gaza and of relegating Egypt to the rank of a US vassal, particularly offensive considering the position of Egypt as a one-time leading Arab nation.

Interestingly, I have not heard any reactions from Mrs. Clinton concerning the protests in Algeria, Bahrain or Yemen. There has been no condemnation of the harsh repression the protestors there have been suffering. Indeed, one would be forgiven to think nothing is even happening in those countries. But in Iran, the modern-day Kermit Roosevelts are weaving their magic and creating history before our very eyes. Apparently a noble and humanitarian football referee has even refused to lead the Iranian football team because of the protests in Tehran. Yet during the Egyptian revolution the biggest concern that Western media had was regarding the welfare of tourists on the Red Sea coast. It is good to have your priorities straight.

A revolution is, by definition, a great and far-reaching change or a complete overhaul of an existing political system. The 1979 Islamic revolution deserved that name. Back then, Iran moved up from a nation that was the gas pump of the West under a despotic and archaic Shah, to an independent Islamic country which has, for all its flaws, pushed Iran the status of a world super power. The 2009 protests about allegedly rigged elections (widely supported by the United States) are not a revolution. Their primary purpose is to return Iran to a Western orbit, to reduce the influence of Iran on international affairs or the management of its internal ones and to relegate the country to the status of a US vassal or protectorate. It is with a heavy heart that I fully support the Iranian government in the way they deal with the protestors. Some things are far too valuable to allow well-intentioned fools to dabble with.

.

Nasheed - Ya Imam Rusli

.

الصلاة على رسول الله .....عبد الباسط عبد الصمد

بمناسبة العيد النبوي الشريف, كل عام و انتم بخير

.

The Real Evils plaguing "the Real Evils Plaguing the Region" - a response to Buthaina Shaaban

Ms. Buthaina Shaaban, the political and media advisor to the president of Syria, has written an article on Forward Magazine's website about the Egyptian revolution. Considering her quite visible role as a representative of the Syrian government it was interesting to see her response to this historic event. However I was quite disappointed with its context and ambiguous conclusion, and I felt compelled to respond to some of her assumptions. Having received direct responses from Ms. Shaaban for emails that I had sent her commending her various foreign policy statements, I do hope she responds as earnestly to well intentioned criticism - otherwise I will have a very uncomfortable stay in Syria the next time I visit. Below is a copy of my comment to her article.


Ms. Shaaban, you have written a timely article which exposes the considerable hypocrisy underlining Western relations with Arab countries, however, I feel your article has not done justice to particular aspects of the Egyptian revolution; Aspects which can portray a deeper and far more uncomfortable reality facing the Arab world than the geopolitical machinations you expose so masterfuly.

The Egyptian revolution was not only a revolution against the Mubarak regime's execrable foreign policy, nor only against the relegation of Egypt to the role of a US vassal in the region. In fact, not even the deplorable conditions of the Gazans, exacerbated by Mubarak's assistance of the Israeli siege, were the largest motivation for this revolution.

The fact remains, and must be stated however uncomfortable the reality, that Egyptians were revolting against the arbitrary nature of their government, the endemic corruption and police brutality, and the complete disregard for the "rule of law" that became characteristic of Mubarak's regime.

Whilst Egypt and its other Arab allies might be guilty of their complicity with the United States and the criminal entity in our region, one cannot honestly say that the arbitrary and harsh nature against which the Egyptian people revolted is unique to these regimes alone. To say that outrage over what happens in Iraq and occupied Palestine is the prime motive for the discontent of these people is a crass understatement which neatly sidesteps the "elephant in the room", so to speak. This may, perhaps, explain the rather ambiguous conclusion to your article.

Understandably this is an uncomfortable topic to broach, particularly for someone in as sensitive a position as yours. Being an "Arab Citizen" used to mean something once, it was a privilege which granted its owner the right to speak, to be heard, and to be involved in how their country is being governed. It is a privilege which also demanded respect, and to serve the citizenry was a role which instilled a certain sacred awe in government officials. Surely we cannot all be so obtuse as to not recognise this fact?

Sincerely,
Maysaloon

.

مصر يامّة يا بهية

.

The Poetry of Pablo Neruda

Because of you, in gardens of blossoming flowers I ache from the perfumes of spring.

I have forgotten your face, I no longer remember your hands; how did your lips feel on mine?

Because of you, I love the white statues drowsing in the parks, the white statues that have neither voice nor sight.

I have forgotten your voice, your happy voice; I have forgotten your eyes.

Like a flower to its perfume, I am bound to my vague memory of you. I live with pain that is like a wound; if you touch me, you will do me irreparable harm.

Your caresses enfold me, like climbing vines on melancholy walls.

I have forgotten your love, yet I seem to glimpse you in every window.

Because of you, the heady perfumes of summer pain me; because of you, I again seek out the signs that precipitate desires: shooting stars, falling objects.

.

هان الود

Muhammad Abd el Wahhab is probably one of my favourite singers. The lyrics of his songs strike a chord far more often than those of Abd al Halim, Fareed al Atrash and, perhaps, even Umm Kalthoum. But each to their own. It may be that I'm just going through a particular phase. Still, I heard this song the other night and realised I had never really paid attention to the lyrics before. They are beautiful.

.

Not all Revolutions are Equal - A Comparison between Egypt and Iran

One would think, watching the BBC or CNN, that the Egyptian revolution is winding down and that the people are going back home now that talks have been commenced with the regime. That is not surprising. Since the 25th of January I've found that Western coverage of the protests has, at times, verged on the half-hearted. The picture is completely different with regards to the coverage provided by al Jazeera, that has been providing almost round-the-clock analysis and coverage of the current Egyptian revolution.

The difference between the BBC and the coverage of al Jazeera could not be more different, yet I remember that the BBC seemed to find the so-called 'Green Revolution' in Iran far more fascinating. At the time there was in-depth coverage, analysis and up-to-the-minute information on what was happening in the streets. When Neda Sultan was shot at one of the protests she was immediately turned into the face of that revolution. Yet countless Neda Sultan's were shot dead on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria and Port Said over the past 15 days but we have yet to see a single one of them appear on any Western news outlet. Not one BBC journalist has visited a victim's family, or attended the funeral of any of the protestors. The horrific footage of cars plowing through crowds of protestors or of people being shot in the streets have not provoked as much concern as they would have if they were filmed on the streets of Tehran.

Even the language of Western statesmen has been far more diplomatic and reserved with Egypt than it has been with Iran. In fact the most prominent concern aired for these statesmen has been their fear of a replay on the Iranian revolution in 1979. The idea that Egypt might have a revolution like that of Iran is very unsettling to the West, hence the emphasis by Obama on 'orderly transitions'. This is because the removal of Mubarak is acceptable, but the removal of his regime is not. This regime (inspired by the former president Anwar Sadat) maintains peace with Israel and disrupts the activities of dissenting players in the Middle East such as Hezbullah, Hamas, Iran, or Syria. It is a key ally of the United States and its internal security apparatus help keep the Arab world's most populous and influential country under a tight leash. As a result, all this makes Egypt a prize that is far too valuable to lose.

In a recent blog post I pointed out that it is not wise to equate a day of rage between a country like Syria and that of Egypt. The reason I did that is because these revolutions are not taking place in a vacuum. There is a power struggle in the region between the United States and the regional powers such as Iran, with whom Syria is a key ally. For Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen to drift into the orbit of the 'opposition' states in the region, leaving Saudi Arabia and Jordan alone as US allies, would be very dangerous for the interests of the West in the area, and potentially for the security of the key US ally, Israel. What raises interesting questions in the coverage of Western news outlets between the protests in Egypt and those of Iran is how neatly the coverage coincides with the strategic interests of the United States and her allies. That raises deep concerns about the supposed impartiality and professionalism of these news outlets, but it also gives high hopes for Arabic channels such as al Jazeera that have succeeded in creating an alternative platform for the Arab world to voice its interests.

.

Islamic arguments against revolution - A farce

There is a ridiculous aspect to Sunni political Islam which holds that to revolt against an unjust ruler goes against the teachings of the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet. I have heard several people, in recent days, tell me their opinions about the Egyptian revolution, namely that it is forbidden in Islam and that the people who have died at the hands of the police are not martyrs.

Firstly I reject the insinuation that any of the people who died at the hands of the government thugs and police are going to any kind of hell. I don't think that is in anybody's power to make such a judgment. Secondly, I don't believe for an instant that Muslims are expected to be meek little sheep whilst they are ruled by a tyrant who has betrayed his country to its enemies, amassed a personal fortune during his reign and whose thugs are torturing and abusing the people. But I want to look at the arguments that these people make because the Qur'an does say:

ادْعُ إِلَى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُمْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ ضَلَّ عَنْ سَبِيلِهِ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ

Apparently, khuruj an Wali al Amr(الخروج عن ولي الأمر) or 'revolting against the ruler' is a grave sin. Well I decided to go straight to the fountain head and see what the late Saudi Islamic scholar Abdul Aziz Abdullah Bin Baz said on the subject. Here is a link in Arabic to what his views are on the subject.

Sheikh Bin Baz is a firm believer that it is a grave Islamic sin to rise up against a ruler who is mistreating his people. He starts with a quote from the Qur'an, which will be the strongest part of his argument. This is in the Nissa verses in the Quran.


فقد قال الله عز وجل: {يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً} [النساء: 59].

"Oh you who believe, obey God and obey the prophet and those who lead from amongst you, and if you disagree in a matter then refer it to God and the Prophet and if you believe in God and the Last Day then that is a better solution" verse 59

Bin Baz says this is a comandment to obey those who lead from amongst you. He then lists out the key teachings of the prophet which support his argument. The references are on the link I provided.

1. And he who has a ruler and sees this ruler disobeying God, let him hate the disobeying of God but not let it affect his allegiance to the ruler.

2. And who leaves the group and disobeys, then dies, dies the death of the Great Ignorance.

3. And it is a duty to listen and obey both for what he likes and dislikes. Unless he is commanded to sin, in which case there is no listening or obeyance.

4. (When asked about what to do with rulers who do things that are wrong) Give them their rights and ask God for your rights

5. Unless you see from them blatant blasphemy with evidence before God.

Basically, the sum of Bin Baz's judgement is that if a greater evil were to befall the Muslims then they must not revolt and if they are able to avoid bloodshed in removing the ruler then they can go ahead and do so. In all other cases it is forbidden.

Well, I won't go into the legitimacy or acceptability of Bin Baz giving out judgements. He is highly regarded by many people who adhere to the view I have outlined above. What I will do is pick apart what he said and see if it is still valid.

Firstly, with regards to the Quranic verse 59 in Nissa, then yes, it is a direct command to obey God, the Prophet and those who lead amongst you - اولي الأمر منكم. That is a very important word, Olee al Amr Minkum (those who lead from amongst you) as this is not just a word for a ruler. It is a word which, when translated properly, as I have done, implies that: Firstly the ruler is from amongst the believers; Secondly it implies a certain loyalty and almost democratic legitimacy that the ruler is given in order to lead in the first place.

My argument is as follows. The verse from the Qur'an applies to certain circumstances only. The ruler is appointed from amongst the believers, that is why the word is اولي الأمر منكم, 'minkum' means 'of you' and the Qur'an does not say "Ruler" or "King", even though it uses those words in other contexts, especially when referring to tyrants who opposed the prophets. That's a very important choice of words and I don't think Bin Baz has picked up on it. Why use the word minkum? I think it is because there is a need for legitimacy to be granted to the ruler from amongst his peers before he can be referred to as Wali al Amr. If that legitimacy is not there, the ruler cannot be obeyed regardless of how he has seized power.

If this argument is correct then there is probably not a single ruler in the world that has this mandate. In fact every government in the region has seized power from the previous wali al amr and the one before that, and the one before that. The so-called "Arab Republics" and the Arab kingdoms, cannot, as a matter of logic, have an actual Wali al Amr, let alone one assigned 'minkum' or 'of you', because they all came to power through coups and military revolts, ie. By the very means that Islam is said to prohibit, according to Bin Baz. This chain of reasoning is absent in his arguments and for this reason the rest of his judgement becomes fatally flawed.

The hadith, which are of secondary importance to the verses in the Qur'an for any pious Muslim, should thus be viewed in light of the precise definition of what constitutes a legitimate Wali al Amr. Only then can the teachings of the prophet be considered appropriate to apply in a modern political context such as we see in Egypt. Therefore only then can someone be in a position to say that revolting against that ruler is wrong.

Mubarak was unelected. neither was Sadat nor Nasser. The fact that Nasser was legitimately appointed by popular and outright consent from the people on the street after his attempt to resign in 1967 is important, however, Sadat was not made president through such a process. Yes, he was assigned by Nasser, but Nasser cannot substitute the "Minkum", or "of you" proviso in the Qur'anic verse. Therefore, it was necessary that Sadat too submit to a process of legitimisation by the people upon assuming the presidency when Nasser died. That did not happen. Sadat was assassinated and Mubarak automatically became the next president. Mubarak is said to have fraudulently rigged the outcomes of six elections during the thirty years of his rule. He has no legitimacy as a ruler today and never had any since assuming power. Therefore, it follows that a revolution against Mubarak, Islamic or otherwise, cannot possibly be contrary to Islam and a 'sin' as some misguided people might believe. It is ludicrous to believe otherwise and an insult to common-sense and human decency.

.

Maza Toreedoon (Day3at Teshreen)

.

ناصر يخطب عن حقوق الفقراء

.

A Syrian "Day of Rage" - A Day for Fools

I was at a talk by Robert Lacey, the author of "The Kingdom" and "Inside The Kingdom" which was being held in the House of Commons last Tuesday. Upon finding out I was Syrian, Mr Lacey asked me whether I thought it likely that the wave of revolution sweeping the Middle East is going to reach Syria. I said that it will not and although the country might have similar problems to Egypt, the current president Assad is far more popular. In short, Syria is different.

On Wednesday, with Egyptians being attacked in Tahrir square, I was surprised to be receiving Facebook group invites in solidarity with the Syrian president. This struck me as incredible that whilst the whole world has eyes on Egypt, some dimwitted fool thought it opportune for a ridiculous and unnecessary affirmation of allegiance to the Syrian government. In the same breath, I visited the Facebook group calling for a "Day of Rage" in Syria. There were stern warnings for pro-government commentators that they will be kicked off immediately and with no questions asked. These commentators were labelled by the group's admininistration as 'saboteurs' and 'thugs'. I shook my head in despair as, once again, activist Syrians demonstrate their foolishness in a riot of noise and incoherence.

Syria, like Iran, is a vital pivot for the countries that are resisting American hegemony in the region. Yet, time and again, these same activists that call for the overthrow of the Syrian government in the name of freedom and democracy will emphasise that they too are against American hegemony. So they intend to check the advance of American hegemony by removing the check against American hegemony...

Such incidents demonstrated a certain lack of intelligence. The situation in the country is in no way comparable to, say, 1981, when Syria was embroiled in the Lebanese civil war and was also engulfed by the flames of an armed insurrection led by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, largely funded and armed by Saddam's Iraq. The level of brutality by the state back then in no way compares to the state of affairs today, although it is still just below the surface. It's not Switzerland, but Syria is much gentler to her people than it used to be even twenty years ago and that is a relatively big improvement.

I recall an Iraqi friend I met in London once telling me how he was approached by the Syrian security services whilst visiting the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. He had unknowningly been taking photographs of the Presidential palace and was surprised to see a plainclothes man come up to him and politely ask him to delete the pictures, checking afterwards that it had been done. He was amazed by the politeness, he told me, because if he had done something like this in Saddam's Iraq he would have been horribly beaten up or worse. Furthermore I have met many Arabs from different countries who have honestly told me they wished they had the Syrian president ruling their country instead!

This is not to say that the people of Syria cannot harbour genuine grievances against the government and its security services, but frankly there is no opposition worthy of the name to yet appear on the scene and Syria has acquitted itself admirably with regards to the resistance in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian cause. It will do far more harm than good to see a misguided "day of rage" waste all that hard work and I cannot see how somebody could justify such a position.

Finally, the biggest difference that these people do not grasp about Syria is that it is run by men who are themselves Syrian, born and bred. These Syrians reach decisions which are made in Damascus, not Washington or Tel Aviv as is the case with Mubarak's regime or the Ben Ali dictatorship. As a result, Syria is a country which punches far above its weight on the international scene and has a measure of healthy respect even from its enemies in the West and Israel. On the other hand, Egypt today is relegated to the status of an American vassal. The facts speak for themselves even if some people are unwilling to acknowledge them.

.