Ahrar al-Sham media activist: "I won’t claim that al-Fou’ah and Kafarya are entirely besieged."

Below is something I thought might be pertinent amid the coverage of Madaya, the Damascus countryside town that has recently been subjected to a crushing siege by the regime and Hizbullah. I’ve translated a response from Ahrar al-Sham media activist Marwan Khalil (Abu Khaled al-I’lami) to criticism of Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusrah’s blockade of the Shi’ite regime loyalist towns of Kafarya and al-Fou’ah. The criticism, which Ahrar and Nusrah have received from multiple opposition quarters: Their siege of the towns actually isn’t intense enough.

Kafarya and al-Fou’ah are Idlib towns that have been stranded deep behind rebel lines since the Jeish al-Fateh (Army of Conquest) rebel coalition, of which Ahrar and Nusrah are the main components, swept the regime out of most of Idlib province in early 2015. The two towns were half of the September 2015 deal negotiated by, reportedly, Ahrar al-Sham and Iran; the other half were the Damascus countryside towns of al-Zabadani and Madaya.

Since then, Ahrar and Nusrah have been obliged, somewhat awkwardly, to respect a truce with pro-regime militias inside al-Fou’ah and Kafarya. They’ve also had to allow shipments of supplies to enter the two towns and, as part of a December swap, some residents of the towns to leave. Relief to any town under the truce has only been allowed on a reciprocal basis – thus, relief to Madaya this week had to be delivered simultaneously with relief to al-Fou’ah and Kafarya.

The deal has attracted critics, who argue that Ahrar and Nusrah have made some impermissible compromise with the regime and its allies or – to put it in crude sectarian terms – are “feeding the Rawafidh (Shi’a).” Abu Khaled was responding to a report from Murasel Souri (Syrian correspondent), a pro-opposition Syrian activist news outlet, claiming that shipments of food, water and diesel are being diverted by Ahrar and Nusrah to al-Fou’ah and Kafarya and that any talk of a “siege” is purely for media consumption. Others have echoed similar criticisms, ranging from premiere Salafi-jihadist theorist Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi to Syrian Revolutionaries Front chief Jamal Ma’rouf, a southern Idlib rebel warlord whom Nusrah ran out of the country in November 2014. (Ma’rouf’s tweets are translated below the jump.)

صورة اليوم :أحد اساد #جبهة_النصرة يحمي قافلة مجرمي #كفريا و#الفوعة بكل فخر واعتزاز pic.twitter.com/fE4T829DSg

— نضال محمد صبيح (@nedal_sbaih) December 29, 2015

Nidhal Sbeih, former spokesman for the Syrian Revolutionary Front: “Picture of the day: One of the lions of Jabhat al-Nusrah proudly protects a bus of al-Fou’ah and Kafarya’s criminals.”

To be clear: I don’t think this intra-opposition static provides the whole story of conditions in al-Fou’ah and Kafarya, on which no one seems to have reported satisfactorily.

My impression, and what I’ve heard from others, is that Ahrar and Nusrah have not exercised leverage on al-Fou’ah and Kafarya (and thus Iran, Hizbullah and the Assad regime) by imposing the sort of crushing deprivation we’ve seen in Madaya. As Abu Khaled argues, al-Fou’ah and Kafarya benefit not just from relief shipments that fall under the Zabadani truce, but also from opportunistic residents of neighboring towns willing to sell supplies and from regime airdrops. Instead, rebels have leaned on the towns by shelling them indiscriminately and threatening them through conventional military means. Indeed, we saw Saudi jihadist evangelist and chief Jeish al-Fateh judge Abdullah al-Muheisini argue earlier this month al-Fou’ah should be “exterminated” if the siege on Madaya weren’t lifted.

That said, by at least some accounts – in one case, local militiamen who had been evacuated to Lebanon – residents of the two Idlib towns are also desperate enough to eat grass. I don’t know.

But the political dimensions of the al-Fou’ah–Kafarya siege and the controversy it has stirred within some parts of the opposition are knowable.

In some ways, the criticisms of Ahrar and Nusrah are a mirror image of loyalist outrage over the Syrian regime’s recent truce with Homs’s rebel-held al-Wa’ar neighborhood. They seem to be more evidence of the popular resistance – on both sides – to any deal, on any terms.

---

Ahrar al-Sham media activist Abu Khaled al-I’lami, January 7 2015

“In response to the accusations of treason leveled by Murasel Souri against the factions active on the Kafarya and al-Fou’ah fronts”

My revolution has taught me that there are opportunists who wait to take advantage of some moments.

When Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusrah lost nearly 56 men in their last battle with [regime forces in al-Zabadani and al-Fou’ah], we found that everyone was silent. But when we managed to get our wounded out of besieged al-Zabadani in exchange for al-Fou’ah’s wounded leaving, suddenly we were feeding the Rawafidh (derog., Shi’a) and taking money. Anyone who says, “Attack al-Fou’ah,” says that because he doesn’t have a relative under siege [in al-Zabadani]. All of our people have learned this language, these accusations of treason and empty theorizing. It reminds me of when we used to play strategy games.

Yes, I won’t claim that al-Fou’ah and Kafarya are entirely besieged. There are failures to which everyone admits, and anyone who denies them is as deluded as those who level accusations at us.

And some of the reasons for that:

1. The presence of a number of factions around al-Fou’ah and Kafarya and the differences between them has led to gaps on the front lines. This happens on any front line, and it’s something from which the Syrian revolution has suffered since the start, and for which all the factions are to blame – within the bounds of advice and constructive criticism, not accusations of betrayal or acting like some opportunistic hustler.

2. Al-Fou’ah and Kafarya are surrounded by a long perimeter, and so encircling them requires large numbers of men. Because of that, some weak-willed people in the surrounding towns sell them food, and they’ll be held accountable for that.

3. In addition, the regime provides them with food by plane, albeit not a lot.

I wrote this not to wipe out some of this totally unrealistic talk, but rather in the interest of advice and criticism, so that Murasel Souri might not be biased to a particular side. The best thing, as I see it, is for someone to be honest, even if someone runs against his ideology.

“The one who hears is not like the one who sees.”

Marwan Khalil, Abu Khaled al-I’lami.

---

Syrian Revolutionaries Front commander Jamal Ma’rouf, October 5 2015

سؤال موجه للمحيسني هل الهدنه التي حصلت بينكم وبين بشار وإيران مثتثنى منها روسيا! لأننا نرى روسيا إذدادت شراسةً بعد الهدنه !؟ إنهاالخيانه ؟؟؟

— جمال معروف أبو خالد (@gmal_marouf) October 5, 2015

Jamal Ma’rouf, commander of the Syrian Revolutionary Front: “A question for al-Muheisini: Is Russia is exempt from the truce between you, Bashar and Iran? Because we see that Russia has only gotten more ferocious since the truce!? Is this not a betrayal???”

لوأن مقاتلين الفوعه وكفريا أسرى بيد النصره. ماتجرأت روسيا على قصف مواقع المجاهدين ! ولكن هدنة تهريب مرتزقة الشيعه هي التي جعلت روسيا تتغطرس؟

— جمال معروف أبو خالد (@gmal_marouf) October 5, 2015

Jamal Ma’rouf: “If al-Fou’ah and Kafarya’s fighters were al-Nusrah’s captives, Russia wouldn’t dare bomb the positions of the mujahideen. But a truce to smuggle out Shi’a mercenaries, is that what made Russia so cocky?”

Jabhat al-Nusrah's Abu Muhammad al-Jolani: "Of course we won’t be bound by [Riyadh]."

Below are some notes on Jabhat al-Nusrah chief Abu Muhammad al-Jolani’s recent “press conference,” which aired on December 12. In the conference, al-Jolani entertained questions from Mousa al-Omar of al-Ghad al-Arabi, Adham Abul-Husam of Al Jazeera, Muhammad al-Feisal of Orient and independent celebrity activist Hadi al-Abdullah. These notes aren’t meant to be comprehensive – there’s more to the conference, which is worth watching in full – but they do highlight a few of the things I thought were most interesting.

Destroy the Riyadh Conference

So al-Jolani’s main theme here is “burn down the Riyadh conference,” more or less. (The press conference was apparently recorded before Riyadh but released afterwards.) Al-Jolani argues that the Riyadh conference is integrally related to the Vienna negotiations process, which he says will retain President Bashar al-Assad in power, integrate opposition brigades with the regime’s military, and then compel them to turn on Nusrah, the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and others viewed as jihadist irreconcilables.

Al-Jolani not only attacks the conference itself, but really goes in on rebel brigade participants, accusing them of “treason” for playing along with this international conspiracy. In what I thought was most shocking, he attempted to destroy the credibility of any agreement with rebel buy-in by arguing that, in fact, these brigade representatives exert no real command and control over their units on the ground and can’t compel them to abide by any agreement. This is the sort of argument that is a real dagger in the heart of any negotiations process because, after all, if rebel leadership can’t actually restrain their footsoldiers, then no agreement means anything. It’s also pretty insulting to the brigades that chose to endorse or participate in the conference, which is more or less everyone to the left of al-Qaeda.

Muhammad al-Feisal, Orient News: “Returning to the Riyadh conference, will you be bound by the Riyadh resolutions on the ground?”

Al-Jolani: “Of course we won’t be bound by any of it. We won’t abide by [these outcomes], and in fact we’ll work to make them fail.”

Al-Feisal: “And their impact on the ground, what do you expect?”

Al-Jolani: “I don’t think that anyone who went to negotiate at the Riyadh conference is capable of implementing [any agreement], even if he repeats whatever was dictated to him or impressed upon him. I don’t think he’s capable of implementing anything he promised on the ground.”

19:24-20:04

Battlefield Optimism

Al-Jolani also offers a pretty strikingly optimistic take on rebels and jihadists’ battlefield progress, arguing that negotiations have only resurfaced as an international priority because the regime continues to weaken and lose ground. Al-Jolani’s rejectionist stance on negotiations basically requires him to adopt this line so he can claim that acquiescence to talks and a negotiated resolution amounts, more or less, to seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. Still, in arguing for such a rosy outlook, al-Jolani occasionally contorts himself into weird positions. For example, he claims that the regime controls only 20 percent of Syrian territory, which is arguably true – but only if you exclude the country’s central Badiyyah wasteland, ISIS territory, and areas held by the Kurdish PYD/YPG. By that sort of reckoning, I’d guess that mixed rebels and non-ISIS jihadists probably don’t hold much more than 20 percent of the country themselves.

ISIS as a Second-Order Threat

While al-Jolani doesn’t seem to be inching towards a reconciliation with ISIS, he also makes it clear that fighting ISIS is not an urgent priority for Nusrah and that he’s personally uninterested in capturing Syrian public support by claiming to fight ISIS. When he discusses the northern Aleppo front, for example, he says that even before Nusrah withdrew south over concerns about the legitimacy of collaborating with Turkey and the international Coalition, Nusrah was not fighting ISIS or manning the front lines against the group. And in later discussing al-Qaeda’s historic victories and vanguard role, he claims both Afghanistan and Iraq as victories for al-Qaeda and defeats for America – somewhat odd considering that ISIS ate up al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Iraqi jihad has turned out to be, realistically, a total mess.

Combative Questioning

I think I’m still in shock from seeing the head of a Jabhat al-Nusrah affiliate subject himself to open and occasionally challenging questioning. Through the conference, these journalists and activists interrupt or push back on al-Jolani in a way that is very different from some of the staged “interviews” Nusrah has released previously.

Hadi al-Abdullah stands out for putting al-Jolani in a genuinely difficult spot in several instances. Take, for example, al-Abdullah’s question about Nusrah arresting FSA commanders, which prompted al-Jolani’s controversial denial that there’s such a thing as the “Free Syrian Army.” (I’m less exercised about this than some for reasons I’ve tweeted about previously.) Orient’s al-Feisal follows up with a question about Nusrah’s Dar al-Qada judiciary, which prompts al-Abdullah to offer a pretty real interjection:

Al-Feisal, Orient News: “A question from the street: If someone has a grievance about Jabhat al-Nusrah or about a detainee or something like that, where should he go?”

Al-Jolani: “He can go to the branches of Dar al-Qada, which are for the public. And there’s an office to receive complaints…”

Hadi al-Abdullah, interrupting: “Sheikh, Dar al-Qada, in one way or another, belong to Jabhat al-Nusrah. When someone goes [to Dar al-Qada], Nusrah becomes both the opposing party and the judge.”

Al-Jolani: “Jabhat al-Nusrah supports Dar al-Qada, but its judiciary is entirely independent. We provide it with support, we sponsor it, but its judiciary is totally independent. And those working in it, more than 80 percent of them, or about 80 percent, are independent. They don’t have any link to Jabhat al-Nusrah or anything like that…”

49:15-50:07

So, first of all, al-Abdullah is right. With the seeming exception of Hreitan (Aleppo), Dar al-Qada is basically a Jabhat al-Nusrah project that is not seen as effectively independent. But by challenging al-Jolani like this, al-Abdullah is calling into question the core of Nusrah’s governing program in northern Syria, of which Dar al-Qada is right at the heart. And he’s doing it to al-Jolani’s face, it’s bonkers.

The Al-Qaeda Affiliation

Short version, Jabhat al-Nusrah is not going to break its link with al-Qaeda. Al-Jolani doesn’t even promise to split with al-Qaeda if Syria’s jihadist or mujahideen factions join together to form a purely Islamic state – he says Jabhat al-Nusrah will be among the first soldiers of that state, but I don’t think that even implies Jabhat al-Nusrah will dissolve itself. He also continues to distance Nusrah from terrorist attacks abroad in only the most narrow terms. He says al-Qaeda has other people who handle those things, but Jabhat al-Nusrah just fights in Syria – for now.

Al-Jolani: “At this time, Jabhat al-Nusrah isn’t concerned with anything but fighting Bashar al-Assad and Hizbullah, who are hurting the people of Syria. Al-Qaeda has many roles that are divided; not everyone has the same role. Maybe al-Qaeda has people who fight America or work in Europe, but our mission is just…” (interrupted)

52:55-53:16

Al Jazeera Arabic: Reporter Ahmed Zeidan Tours 'Ateiba with Jabhat al-Nusra

In the above report, originally aired March 27 on Al Jazeera Arabic, we can see an example of the mainstreaming of Jabhat al-Nusra (JAN) in regional media.

The report is titled (in Arabic) “Battles Between the Regime and Free Syrian Armies in al-Ghouta al-Sharqiya Outside Damascus.” As you can see from the video and the below translation, however, in this case Free Syrian Army (FSA) forces seem to have been subsumed by a JAN command.  The report, including Jazeera reporter Ahmed Zeidan apparently being walked through the town by JAN fighters and a brief interview with a JAN spokesman, arguably shows a normalizing of JAN’s role within the Syrian revolution in pan-Arab media – or, at the least, Al Jazeera.

On an unrelated note, you can see from the end of the report that Jazeera is putting a strong emphasis on the regime’s (as yet unconfirmed) use of chemical weapons.

Translation

Military reinforcements sent by Jabhat al-Nusra to the ’Ateiba area in al-Ghouta al-Sharqiya (East Ghouta), where the regime was able to cut off revolutionaries’ route to northern and southern areas several days ago. Al-Nusra’s fighters deployed across the front lines after they managed to expel the regime’s army from several buildings within the town, which drove Free Syrian Army forces to turn over control of the operations room to Jabhat al-Nusra.

Shells and bullets everywhere, including the destruction of a regime tank. Meanwhile, the Syrian regime’s army issues threats Jabhat al-Nusra, meanwhile, issues threats to the regime.

“Abu Hommam,” official spokesman of Jabhat al-Nusra in al-Ghouta: “Assad’s gangs approached from a number of directions in a desperate, failed attempt to occupy the town of ’Ateiba in order to impose a choking siege on the region. With the aid of God Most High, this invading force was repelled. A large quantity of equipment [lit. machines] and ‘Shelka’ vehicles Shilkas were destroyed; [the force] suffered grave losses of life among its soldiers, and, with the aid of God Most High, high-ranking officers were killed.”

Destruction is everywhere in the town of ’Ateiba, which is now entirely deserted. Here, a child’s swing near where a shell struck. Here, a kitchen abandoned by its owner amid the shelling around it. It seems from this house that its family fled in the night. Even chickens were not spared from the bombing.

This young man from ’Ateiba become a revolutionary and a fighter after his house, like others, was destroyed. “These houses, we invested in them with our blood all these years, all with the blessings of God, praise be to Him. What I’d like to say to the Arab nation, to this Arab Summit, is just that we want to stop this blood[shed] and killing that’s happening now in Syria.”

On the front lines, what worries some revolutionaries is the regime’s use of chemical weapons. In the rear, though, what worries civilians is the regime’s use of these heavy weapons – in addition to the use of chemical weapons.

Ahmed Zeidan, Al Jazeera, al-’Ateiba, al-Ghouta al-Sharqiya.

Translation Notes

First, I just don’t have time to put subtitles on this one. Sorry – hope everyone can follow along with the text.

I couldn’t find the vehicle make to which the JAN member refers. I guess it sounds like “Shellka” or “Chelka”? If someone chimes in with a correction, I’ll fix it.

Update: Woof, sorry, misheard one of the sentences above. The edit should be visible.

Update 2: So, this is the Shilka. Thanks to Mike and @ElSaltador for their help!

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.]

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.