Bassem Youssef: "To us, you aren't sheikhs or 'ulama."

I know that some people are sick of the more serious serious segments of Bassem Youssef’s “Bernameg al-Bernameg” (literally, “The Show Show”), but I thought this one, from his December 21 episode, was useful.

If you’ve watched the second season of his show, you’ve seen that he’s really been going in on the Brotherhood and Islamists in power, but also on a certain kind of religious figure — mostly satellite televangelists and the sort of audience they attract.  The sort of crushing, video archive-aided takedowns he’s been offering week after week have a political dimension, but they also amount to a sort of broader social criticism.  He’s challenging a certain popular kind of Egyptian religiosity and being really deeply, cuttingly sarcastic about a class of religious figures who might otherwise assume that they’re above this kind of criticism.

Apologies for not choosing something funnier, but this soliloquy (rant?) does a lot to explain both the underlying logic of his recent episodes and his harsher, sometimes angry tone.

(Click “CC” to turn on English subtitles!  I tried to make them come on automatically, but I obviously failed. )

[Update, 1 February 2021: YouTube subsequently removed this video in response to a rights claim.]

(Sorry if I muffed anything up — let me know, and I’ll retool the caption file in YouTube!)

Qaradawi: Egyptian Protests Fitna, Khurouj 'ala Wali al-Amr

There were a number of noteworthy points in the November 25 episode of Sharia and Life. Certainly one of the most striking, though, was Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi’s characterization of recent protests against President Muhammad Morsi’s constitutional declaration as khurouj ’ala wali al-amr and fitna. These (related) charges are grave. I’ve left these terms untranslated below, as they have no immediate English parallel, but they basically amount to “rebellion against the legitimate ruler” and “chaos and discord,” respectively. These ideas were among those deployed by authority-friendly clerics (Egyptian and otherwise) during Egypt’s January 25 Revolution to discourage protesters and discredit their actions as un-Islamic. Qaradawi has now turned them on those organizing and participating in Tuesday’s planned mass protests.

What follows is the most relevant back and forth (33:37 – 34:38):

عثمان عثمان: بالعودة إلى الموضوع المصري، الأخ عمرو نصر يسأل: هل تعدّ ما يحدث في مصر الآن من الدعوة إلى إضراب وتعليق عمل المحاكم والاعتراض على القرارات السياسية لرئيس الجمهورية وحشد الجماهير لذلك، هل يعتبر ذلك نوعاً من أنواع الخروج على ولي الأمر الذي وجب الـ(garbled)

الشيخ يوسف القرضاوي: نعم، هذا نوع من الفتنة، ومن الإفساد في الأرض. أنا أدعو إلى من يريد أن، يعني، يتشاور مع الآخرين، يفتح حوار مع الناس، يتكلّمهن. أما الذين يدعون إلى أن البلد تتوقّف وإن الناس يحارب بعضهم بعضاً وإنه ليس هناك إلا أنّنا نفرض أنفسنا على الآخرين، هذا أمر لا يجوز أبداً. ولا يقبل في لا منطق الشوى لا منطق الديمقراطية ولا أي منطق.

Othman Othman: Returning to the subject of Egypt, Brother Amr Nasr asks: Do you consider what is happening now in Egypt – in terms of a call for a strike, suspension of the functioning of the courts, objection to the political decisions of the president of the republic, and, to that end, assembling for mass action – do you consider that a kind of al-khurouj ’ala wali al-amr who we must (garbled).

Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi: Yes. This is a sort of fitna, of corruption on earth (al-ifsad fil-ardh). I call on those who want to consult with others, open a dialogue with people, speak to them. As for those who are calling for the country to come to a standstill and for people to go to war with each other and that there is nothing left but to impose ourselves on others, this is not at all permissible. It is not acceptable according to the logic of shura, of democracy, of anything.

Elsewhere, Morsi differentiates between those who disagree and those who are obstructionist (10:07 – 10:20):

الشيخ يوسف القرضاوي: أنا لا أمنع الناس تطالب مثلاً بأنّها تتشاور في هذا الأمر، أنّ يكون من حقّهم التشاور، لا بأس. الشورى شيء، ولكن المعارضة لأجل المعارضة…

Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi: I would not stop people from demanding, for example, to be consulted on this issue. Consultation is their right. Of course. Shura is one thing, but opposition for the sake of opposition [is another]…

Other notable passages include this (3:15 – 4:17), in which Qaradawi defends, in general terms, Morsi’s right to issue the constitutional declaration. Later in the program, he goes on to defend the declaration’s individual points on their merits.

الشيخ يوسف القرضاوي: نعم، من حقه أن يفعل ذلك بحكم المسؤولية التي كلّفه الله إياها. هو رئيس مصر. ما معنى رئيس مصر؟ يرأسها بأي شيء؟ يرأسها بأن يتولّى مسؤوليتها. هو مسؤول عن كل فرد فيها.  كلّكم راعِ، وكلكم مسؤول عن رعايته – كل واحد مسؤول عن رعايته. فالمسؤولية مسؤولية عامّة، وهذا كلام رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وسلم. ولذلك، من حقنا أن نسأل لماذا فعلت كذا ولماذا فعلت كذا. الدكتور مرسي أصدر قرارات من أجل الوطن المصري الذي هو رئيسه، والذي هو مسؤول عنه أمام الله وأمام الناس وأمام التاريخ.

Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi: Yes, [Morsi] has the right to do that by virtue of the responsibility with which God has entrusted him. He is the president of Egypt. What does it mean to be president of Egypt? How does he lead? He leads by assuming responsibility for it. He is responsible for everyone in it. All of you are shepherds, and all of you are of the flock – everyone is responsible for those in his care. The responsibility is a public responsibility. This is what the Prophet of God said. So yes, we have the right to ask why you did this or that. Morsi issued resolutions for the sake of the Egyptian nation of which he is the president, and for which he is responsible before God, the people, and history.

Here Qaradawi discusses further the “enemies” of Egypt and the umma and how they aim to sabotage Egypt’s recovery (13:00 – 14:00):

الشيخ يوسف القرضاوي: هناك أناس، طبعاً، لا يهمّهم إن البلد تستقرّ وتبدأ في مرحلة الإنتاج الحقيقي. يريدوا أن تظل البلد في فوضى مستمرة وهؤلاء أعداء هذا البلد، والله العظيم ليسوا مخلصين أبداً. (garbled) الفساد في هذه الديار وهذه الأمّة، وسينتقم الله منهم. لأنّهم لا يرودون الخير لأمّتهم، يريدون أنّهم يشغبوا على الناس لتظل البلاد مضطربة مضطربة، وهذا لا يستفيد منه أحد إلا أعداء الأمّة. الأمّة الحقيقة تريد أن تستقرّ، والاستقرار معناها العمل، والعمل معناه الإناج، والإنتاج معناه النفع العام للجميع! لماذا لا نهيّن لأنفسنا هذا الأمر؟!

Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi: There are people, of course, who aren’t concerned with whether the country becomes stable and begins a new stage of productivity. They want the country to remain in a state of continuous chaos. They are the enemies of this country, by God, they are not righteous at all. (garbled) the corruption in these houses and in this nation (umma), and God will exact retribution from them, because they do not want the best for the nation. They want to stir up discord among people so that the country remains unsettled. Nobody benefits from this except the enemies of the nation. The true nation wants to become stable – stability means work, and work means production, and production means the benefit of all! Why do we not make this easier for ourselves?!

And here Qaradawi dismisses the idea that Egypt’s opposition will be able to rally a million-man protest (milyouniya) on Tuesday (14:13 – 15:44):

الشيخ يوسف القرضاوي: (garbled) مظاهرات مليونية من أعداء الثورة أبداً. لا يستطيعون أن يخرجوا مليونية إطلاقاً. الذين يستطيعون أن يخرجوا المليونيات هم الإسلاميون وأتباعهم من أبناء البلد المخلصين الصادقين.  أبناء العمال وأبناء الفلاحين وأبناء المعلّمين وأبناء الأطباء والمحامين. هؤلاء هم الذين يخرجون، الذين يخرجون بمليونيات. الآخرون ليس عندهم مليونيات. أرجوهم أن يكفّوا عن الشغب على الأمة. من أراد أن يناقش الآخرين، يناقش بالحسنة! الباب مفتوح للجميع.  ليس هناك، يعني، سلطة مستبدّة، وربّنا أنقذنا، أنقذ هذا البلد من هؤلاء الذين كانوا يتحكّمون فيه ولا يكاد يسمع لأحد! لا يكاد يسمع لنا صوت! ندخل البلد، ويفرض علينا حصار من أوّل من ندخل، ويعني… فأنقذنا الله وأكرمنا بهذه الثورة التي أصبحنا فيها أحرار، سادة أنفسنا! تستطيع أن نقول وأن نفعل …

Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi: There will never be million-man marches by the enemies of the Revolution. They can’t muster a million-man march. The ones who can turn out a million-man march, they are the Islamists and their followers among the righteous, honest sons of the country. Sons of workers and peasants and doctors and lawyers. They are the ones who come out, who attend million-man marches. The others do not have million-man marches. I ask of them to refrain from sowing discord within the nation (umma). Whoever wants to discuss with others, let him discuss with good intentions! The door is open to all. There is no[longer] tyranny. God saved us, saved this country from those who were ruling it, when hardly anyone could be heard! People’s voices were barely heard! As soon as we would enter the country, they would encircle us… So God saved us and graced us with this Revolution in which we became free, our own masters!

[Transcription note: In some cases, the transcription reflects al-Qaradawi’s use of Egyptian dialect instead of more rigid Fusha, particularly on أن/إن and pronoun suffixes.]

Mehio, "What is Qatar doing in Kuwait and the Emirates?"

Below is a translation of Lebanese journalist and commentator Saad Mehio‘s September 22 read on intra-Gulf relations — more specifically, those between Qatar and everyone else.  (Via the Twitter feed of Professor Abdulkhaleq Abdulla.)

What is Qatar doing in Kuwait and the Emirates? 

– I –

Is Qatar really interfering in the internal affairs of Kuwait, the Emirates and Bahrain?

At the start, this question belonged to the world of rumors.  When Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jasem Al Thani came forward to deny these accusations, however, matters began to take on another shape – a serious, political one, to be specific.  Why?

The denial meant that the issue had gone from being “biased rumors aimed at sowing the seeds of discord between the Gulf states” (as a Lebanese journalist volunteered today) to being a matter of debate in the Gulf states’ foreign policy. After all, there’s no smoke without fire.  Most importantly, the countries of the Gulf have grown accustomed to addressing differences within the Gulf Cooperation Council in secrecy.  Just the fact that an official voice from Qatar insisted on moving from the custom of silence to the world of the explicit, then, betrays that something is going on in relations between the Gulf states.

The writer of these lines recalls an episode months after the revolutions of the Arab Spring erupted: While eating lunch with a Qatari ambassador to a Gulf country, we were surprised as the ambassador exploded in anger when he saw the restaurant’s “garcons” constantly approaching the table to listen in on us.  The ambassador then said angrily: “Have they gotten so afraid of us that they’re driven to watch us like this?”

– II –

Of course, this fear doesn’t stem from Qatar’s exporting of democracy to these countries.  After all, how can it export what it lacks?  Someone who lacks something, as is well-known, can hardly give it away.  True, it supported Egypt and Tunisia’s revolutions with its media, and sent forces to Libya’s revolutionaries, and now sends weapons and funds to Syria.  But it has done that based on three drivers: Firstly, its Emir’s desire’s to put Qatar’s vast wealth towards the best that money can buy in terms of reputation and diplomatic influence.  Secondly (and more importantly), Doha’s inclinations seem at most times to amount to American foreign policy with Qatari colors.  And thirdly, there is Qatar’s intense desire to retain its independence, wrested from its Saudi big brother – even if that means turning to its American big brother.  This is perhaps represented best in Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of the Saudi-supported Salafi forces.

What concerns the other countries of the Gulf, and especially Kuwait and the Emirates at this point, is the second motive: that is, Qatar serving as the bridge by which America wants to transport its desires for reform to these countries.  The latter, in particular, is well aware that the Arab Spring would not have bloomed and toppled Mubarak, Ben Ali, Qaddafi and Saleh had America not irrigated it.

Given that the countries of the Gulf are unable to air their dirty laundry with the great power that represents their only protection from the ruin of Iranian ambitions – and before that, Iraqi ones – they have perhaps found it better to fortify the Gulf home by cutting off the Qatari house within.

These countries may succeed.  But this will not undo the fact that change and reform in the Gulf states have already reached the core of the international agenda.  The clearest new evidence of that came out yesterday when Mike Posner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, launched a fierce and unprecedented campaign on the government of Bahrain, accusing it of breaking all its promises to reform and hold the mukhabarat back from its people.

– III –

What does that all mean?

It confirms what no longer needs confirming: The Arab Spring is not a passing season. Rather, it is part of a comprehensive international strategy that will only end when the whole makeup of the Middle East has changed.  It’s no use trying to stop it by spending billions of dollars funding extremist Salafists in Egypt, Tunisia and other countries to undermine their democratic transitions, or by dispersing billions more to paper over each Gulf state’s internal contradictions.

In this context, supposed Qatari “interference” may only be the tip of the iceberg under the Gulf’s waters these days.

* * *

How right former American ally Ali Abdullah Saleh was when, in the wake of the announcement of the “Freedom Agenda” in the Middle East, he said: “If we don’t shave ourselves quickly, they’ll do it for us.”

Al-Dustour, "Egypt Will Only Be Saved From Death and Destruction by the Union of the Army and the People"

Below is a translation of the front-page editorial that seems to have led to the confiscation of privately owned newspaper Al-Dustour’s Saturday, August 11 edition.

I did what I could to maintain the original, ah, excited tone.  And as usual, apologies for any mistakes.

Egypt Will Only Be Saved From Death and Destruction by the Union of the Army and the People

In a few days – no more than sixty – the new Brotherhood (Ikhwangi) constitution will be done away with.  This outcome is sealed, of course, by the Brotherhood constitution’s sweeping of the country…  Marking and announcing openly the establishment of the Brotherhood’s Emirate.

After several days and over the coming ten years, Egypt will witness the worst days of its political past and history of struggle and the collapse of its citizens’ patriotic honor…  The collapse of the citizen’s honor in front of his family and his children, and the violation of individual property rights…  Killing and bloodshed… Cutting out the media’s tongue and muzzling it…  The declaration of fascism and the fall of democracy…  Fear and panic for Egyptian families…  And the spread of crime, in all its forms, in the ugliest way imaginable.

After the ratification of the new constitution, legislative authority will be transferred and the Consultative Council (Meglis ash-Shura) will return to the Brotherhood’s control…  And naturally, that legislative power will be lost by the military establishment that now holds it.

At that time, the current senior leadership of the armed forces – who protect the constitutional legitimacy of the civil state, lest its identity be changed to that of a Brotherhood emirate – will be overthrown.  The critical question posed, then…  What comes after the toppling of the present armed forces command…  Will the new leadership of the armed forces come from the Muslim Brotherhood, or no??  If the leadership comes from the Brotherhood, then no individual or group in society will be able to freely express their opinion, protest peacefully or violate the doctrine of the Brotherhood’s Emirate…  If this happens, God forbid, there will be massacres and murder in the streets for all to see until the whole of society submits to the Brotherhood’s rulings and religious doctrine, avoiding a clash with it…  This is the real and honest picture that society will see within days.

Egypt will not be saved from death and destruction except by the union of the army and the people, with the formation of a national salvation front made up of political leadership and the army and the declaration of a civil state under military protection in line with the Turkish system…  If this does not happen in the coming days, Egypt will fall, and, over the few days remaining before the announcement of the new constitution, we will regret it…  The people must go out and protest peacefully, and it is their patriotic duty to do so until the army responds and announces its support for the people.

Readying for the Announcement of Zero Hour

May Egypt Be Under God’s Protection

Al-Rashed, "Victims of Syrian Propaganda"

Below is a translation of Al Arabiya General Manager Abdul Rahman al-Rashed’s defense (published in pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat on August 6) of his channel’s Syria coverage.  Al-Rashed’s piece is, in part, a response to Sultan al-Qassemi’s recent Foreign Policy piece, “Breaking the Arab News” (English).

Evidence to the contrary, I swear I’m not stalking al-Qassemi.  I’m just looking for interesting or useful Arabic materials that haven’t already been translated to English.  Also, I’ve got some time to kill.

Again, apologies for any mistranslation or violation of Asharq al-Awsat‘s intellectual property.

Update: A day later, here’s the official translation.

Victims of Syrian Propaganda

Abdul Rahman al-Rashed

Since the Syrian crisis began, propaganda has played an important role for both sides of the conflict, but it has been more important, effective and successful for the regime of Bashar al-Assad.  Further, I would say that this “propaganda” [1], despite its failure to stop the Syrian’s uprising, has bought more time for the regime than what its forces and shabiha have accomplished on the ground.

Among the regime’s most recent lies were comments attributed several days ago to Riad al-Asaad, commander of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), in a Reuters report.  In these quotes, which were entirely fabricated, al-Asaad claimed that a thousand of his men had been killed in a series of defeats.  That falsehood was not the first; there is, in fact, an army of regime employees producing similar lies.  It isn’t enough for them to promote the regime’s positions in the media, in addition to commenting on and responding to conflicting reports; they go beyond that, falsifying pictures, news and statements in various media.  The propaganda aimed at the West focuses on the revolutionaries being “Qaeda” terrorists and a grab-bagof Islamist extremists.  The propaganda directed at Arabs tells them that what’s happening to the Assad regime is an American-French conspiracy.  And the messages directed to Syrians also differ: for Christians, they’re being targeted by Islamists; for pro-revolution Syrians, they are told that the revolution is a Israel-directed conspiracy against the Arabs and Islam, and that Israeli weapons have been discovered with the revolutionaries.  There is propaganda directed at the revolutionaries themselves, meant to turn them against each other or sow disinformation: when the village of Al-Haffah, near Lattakia, was seized by revolutionaries in what came to be called the Battle of al-Haffah, messages claiming that the FSA had ordered a tactical retreat were directed at them through the media.  As an FSA official told Asharq al-Awsat,the fighters in fact withdrew, thinking that those were the orders of the FSA leadership.

I am not shocked, then, when I hear politicians or media figures in the West adopt the official position of the Syrian regime, given the huge quantity of lies that reach them.  The strangest thing, in fact, is that Russian media aimed abroad circulates Assad regime-produced propaganda materials, even going to great lengths to add to them.

I am surprised, however, when I hear Syrian regime propaganda repeated by researchers and bloggers among us, despite the ease of testing that propaganda’s truth or falsity.  When Sultan al-Qassemi wrote an article claiming that we are biased and falsify videos and news reports on behalf of the anti-regime revolutionaries, I initially thought that it another product of the Syrian regime’s propaganda.  Al-Qassemi not only committed grave errors; rather, he confirmed that the Syrian regime is successful in misleading even educated and informed Arabs.  What he wrote would have been unacceptable even a year ago, when the uprising was just beginning.  The facts on the Syrian issue are clear to us in the region, regardless of our leanings or affiliations.

In spite of the abundance of pictures and videos published daily from the country’s battle zones, the Syrian regime in fact does so much more than the ugly truth which is presented – sometimes to a degree that can’t be believed.

Among the facts of what is happening in Syria which many don’t believe is thatIranians and Russians have joined the regime’s forces in battle for more than a year.  We knew about this early on, but there was little evidence we could present.  Even when pieces of evidence were put forward, the regime media worked to call them into question and turn the issue from one of mercenary killers into one of people who had been wronged [2].  The story of the bus seized by rebels in the past few days was treated the same way.  The bus was carrying fighters from the Revolutionary Guard, so the regime hurried to claim that they were pilgrims.  We know that no one is traveling to Syria now for tourism or to visit religious sites; everyone who appeared in the video were men of fighting age, with no women or children among them.

Of course, it’s easy for some to theorize and criticize from a distance, to summarize everything happening as something purely political and divide everyone according to set axes and categories.  Meanwhile, what’s happening in Syria is clear, supported by huge quantities of evidence with unimpeachable credibility.  This war has gone on for 17 months, more than enough to examine the facts.

Even if these issues are oversimplified for the reader – with what’s happening reduced to media maneuvering within larger political rivalries and various regimes’ manipulation – that doesn’t negate the larger facts evident to the country’s people themselves, which are the most important thing.

Were the Syrian regime not so evil, people would not have continued to risk their lives all this time, whether protesting in isolation or fighting in defense of their families and neighborhoods.  These are not lies or fantasies or political partisanship.

And on the other hand, were Assad’s forces actually convinced of their cause, rather than forced to fight, they would have won long ago.  The regime possesses a vast arsenal of weapons, over half a million soldiers and security personnel involved in the fighting and uninterrupted supplies from its allies; despite all that, it is now encircled in its capital.

1. Here al-Rashed actually uses the Arabic transliteration of the word “propaganda”, as opposed to the Arabic “دعاية”, whose meaning can range from “advertising” to “propaganda” depending on the context.  “دعاية” is used in the remainder of the piece.

2. Honestly, not a thousand-percent sure what al-Rashed means by “أناس مظلومين”, which I’ve translated (clumsily) as “people who had been wronged”.  I assume he means that Syrian media made these “mercenaries” out to be misidentified and slandered, thus inverting Arabiya’s initial coverage.

Al-Qassemi Response: Al-Athbah, "'A New Horizon'?"

Below is a translation of Abdullah bin Hamad al-Athbah’s response (published in Qatari newspaper Al-Arab on July 9) to Sultan Sooud al-Qassemi’s critical account of Al Jazeera Arabic’s “love affair” with the Muslim Brotherhood (“Morsi’s Win Is Al Jazeera’s Loss”, English and Arabic).

Apologies if I’ve mangled any of the translation (especially the poetry, woof) or if this in any way violates Al-Arab’s intellectual property.  Clarifying notes on the translation and any special context can be found at the bottom of the page.

“A New Horizon”?

Abdullah bin Hamad al-Athbah

My esteemed Emirati colleague Sultan Sooud al-Qassemi has written an article in which he criticizes what he thinks is Al Jazeera’s bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  Now, we should emphasize that al-Qassemi is practicing his right to freedom of expression and criticism.  Still, I don’t know why he sees Al Jazeera’s likening of Morsi to Nasser as simultaneously “romancing” Morsi and insulting him because he’s condemned the Nasser era and military rule.  His point needs some clarification for the unenlightened, and this writer, poor servant that he is, is among them. 

Al-Qassemi goes on to assemble evidence that Al Jazeera leans toward the Muslim Brotherhood in an unprofessional fashion.  As proof, he states that Dr. Yousef al-Qaradawi – who was granted Qatari citizenship – is the principal guest on the channel’s religious programs.  Or course, he ignores the fact al-Qaradawi is one of the great scholarly pillars of our truereligion, regardless of his citizenship or his ideological affiliations.  Moreover, I do not know what religious programs are on Al Jazeera other than “Shari’a and Life”!  Or did he use the phrase “religious programs” because his criticism of Arabic-language Al Jazeera was directed at Anglo-Saxons and Franks?  I hope they look closer at this article, especially since it was written with an Arab hand in the English language and only later translated to our mother language.  This is among our friend’s faults: he addresses the West before the East on what is an Eastern issue and, moreover, a purely Arab one!  I had also hoped that he would check his information – if he had, he would know that Qaradawi left the Muslim Brotherhood a not-inconsiderable time ago. 

Al-Qassemi says that Al Jazeera spared no effort in promoting the Muslim Brotherhood after the Brotherhood’s decision to contest the presidential elections, so the channel established “Al Jazeera Mubasher Misr” a few days after the fall of Mubarak.  Now, I would like to emphasize to al-Qassemi that most of the Egyptians I know call Mubarak “the deposed.”  Moreover, I hope that al-Qassemi’s close friend, the Egyptian “media expert”, will tell him that al-Qaradawi supported Aboul Fotouh through the elections’ first round, not al-Shater or Muhammad Morsi.

Al-Qassemi goes on to say: “When Morsi’s office wanted to kill the story of what seemed to be a fabricated Iran news-agency interview with the president, it knew exactly who to call.”  Of course, my esteemed colleague forgot that Dr. Mohammad Morsi had already become the President of the Arab Republic of Egypt when the Persian Fars News Agency claimed that it met with him and that the Office of the Egyptian Presidency denied the meeting. I don’t know what the problem is with contacting Al Jazeera to deny this story, especially since Al Jazeera is the most-watched news channel in the Arab nation.  Why waste time with others?  The question is, then: would al-Qassemi change his position and say that Al Jazeera is not the Brotherhood’s channel if Morsi had denied the interview with Fars on Sky News Arabic instead of Al Jazeera?

Al-Qassemi then writes: “The alliance between Qatar, the host and backer of Al Jazeera, with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is no secret. The Gulf state hosted Khairet El Shater in March for several days… Qatar has also promised $10 billion worth of investments in Egypt, a significant amount that certainly will keep it in the favor of the ever shifting Muslim Brotherhood for the foreseeable future. Additionally, last year, Al Jazeera network appointed a ruling family member to take over from its resigned Muslim Brotherhood ex-boss Wadah Khanfar as the channel’s new head, which increased speculation that the channel’s coverage will continue to be in line with the state’s pro-Islamist agenda.”

I don’t know what the problem is with the fact that Al Jazeera hosted al-Shater in Qatar, just as Sky News Arabic hosted defeated presidential candidate Ahmed Shafiq – whom Egyptians consider among Mubarak’s fuloul.  Is hosting Shafiq or Omar Suleiman, deputy of the deposed Hosni Mubarak, confirmation that one is biased in favor of the military or against Egypt’s revolution?  As for Qatar’s promise to invest 10 billion dollars, that was made after the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces assumed power in Egypt in the wake of the toppling of Mubarak – that is, before the election or victory of Dr. Morsi.  Moreover, that investment will benefit the Egyptian citizen first and foremost!  Does it make sense for Qatar to go back on this promise, then, in so doing serving the military and those who long to bring down President Mohammad Morsi?

I would also like al-Qassemi to help us understand how the nomination of the Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim Al Thani as the general manager of Al Jazeera confirms that the channel will keep up its biased support for these movements.  By this I mean, why didn’t Wadah Khanfar stay – given that he was, as you stress, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Al-Qassemi goes on to demonstrate Al Jazeera’s bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Syrian National Council, relying on the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar.  I had hoped that the Arab al-Qassemi would not quote Al-Akhbar, which is a tool of the Party of Iran and those who hope to preserve its status.  Seeing as how more than one of employee of Al Jazeera contacted al-Qassemi and confirmed that Al Jazeera is biased towards the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, I hope that he will help them work at Sky News Arabic, with its slogan “A New Horizon”.  And as the poet said:

Whosoever does good, he will not lack for rewards

God’s kindness for His people will remain

As God is behind that intention

من يفعل الخير لا يعدم جوازيه

لا يذهب العرب بين الله والناس

والله من وراء القصد

Translation Notes: Throughout the article, al-Athbah describes al-Qassemi as zameel (زميل) commonly translated as “colleague,” but, in this sense, lacking a perfect English-language equivalent.  I’ve reflected this usage only in part, basically because normal English usage only allows you to write “the/my colleague al-Qassemi” so many times.  Anyway, a native would have a better intuitive sense of it, but I think al-Athbah is basically being facetious.

English-language transliterations of names are, basically, inconsistent.  I’ve chosen to reflect the given individual or institution’s chosen English spelling.  Failing that, I’ve used whatever’s most common, so long as it’s not so obviously wrong as to offend me.

With regards to al-Athbah’s point about al-Qassemi’s reference to Al Jazeera’s “religious programs” (برامج دينية), this seems to stem from a mistranslation of al-Qassemi’s original English article.  In his original English text, al-Qassemi doesn’t make this mistake.

Al-Athbah’s point regarding the word “deposed” (مخلوع) stems from the fact that al-Qassemi refers to former President Hosni Mubarak as simply “Mubarak” rather than, as is common in Arabic media, “the deposed President Hosni Mubarak”.

Lastly, real talk, I am not a poetry head, so my translation of that closing poetry is real dubious.  There is a non-zero chance that I turned that verse inside-out.  In recognition of that, I’ve reproduced the original poetry below the translation.