Dodge Middle East: "Are You Dodge?"

They keep showing this ad while I’m watching episodes of 04 online.

I guess it grew on me?

(Was this an English-language ad?  It must’ve been.)

Bassem Youssef: "Why you do this?"

From the January 4 episode of “Bernameg al-Bernameg” (“The Show Show”), Bassem Youssef responds to the lawsuits filed against him:

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

He’s obviously petrified.

Also, just to say, I’ve seen people translate the name of the show as “The Program Program,” which I suppose is technically correct.  Still, “show” and “program” are both acceptable translations for “bernameg” (برنامج), and in American idiom, we typically say “show.” (E.g., “The Daily Show.”)

In any case, I much prefer “The Show Show” as a translation.  But I guess خلّي قلبك دليلك (let your heart be your guide).

Also, I saw on this Washington Post blog that someone is apparently translating whole episodes of “Al-Bernameg.”  Whole episodes!  Seriously, what a champion.

"Just a second, Mister President.": Morsi look-alike at Alexandria demonstration

This really has no broader significance. I was just entertained.

President Morsi look-alike on Nahda stage

From the “Sada al-Balad” writeup:

Video: “Sada al-Balad” has exclusive meeting with President Morsi look-alike on Nahda stage

On the main stage, there could be found a look-alike of President Muhammad Morsi . The man, named Ramadan and hailing from Sohag governorate, began to imitate President Muhammad Morsi. In response, those present chanted, “We love you, Mr. President.”

Ramadan directed a message to the president, telling him, “Stand fast, Mr. President, God is with you.”  He asked the president to implement shari’a. He also said that he loves President Muhammad Morsi because he is devout and prays the fajr (dawn) prayer in the mosque.

This is what years of Arabic study have been building up to: translating part of this video.

(Also, the ambient noise /sound quality made it difficult to hear parts of this, so I definitely missed a few things. HT: Sarah Carr.)

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!)

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-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.