Egypt

US Muslim leaders sue Trump over 'fear-mongering' travel ban

Ahram Online

US Muslim leaders filed suit against President Donald Trump Monday over an immigration order that they said was a "fear-mongering" attempt at keeping members of their religion out of the country.

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, joined 26 others as plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleging that Trump's temporary ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries was in fact a "Muslim exclusion order" that violates the US constitution's religious freedom protections.

"Donald Trump's executive order is not based on national security, it is based on fear-mongering," Awad said Monday.

"This is not a Muslim ban, it is a Muslim exclusion order."

Besides excluding Muslim refugees and immigrants from abroad, the suit alleges Trump's executive order will force out US-resident Muslims from those seven countries "by denying them the ability to renew their lawful status or receive immigration benefits... based solely on their religious beliefs."

That will lead to "the mass expulsion" of both immigrant and non-immigrant Muslims, the suit, filed in the district court in Alexandria, Virginia, alleged.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include several CAIR officials, among them prominent Muslim-American lawyers and activists.

They also include unnamed plaintiffs described as legal residents and visitors to the country who would, if they left temporarily, would not be able to return under Trump's order.

The suit said the order, announced Saturday, reflected anti-Muslim sentiments that Trump expressed during the presidential campaign.

"The Muslim Exclusion Order is the as-promised outcome of Defendant Trump's hateful, year-long campaign which was fueled, in significant part, by a desire to stigmatize Islam and Muslims," it said.

Lawyers said the order violates the US Constitution's protections of religious freedoms and the "establishment clause," which bans the government from making laws that favor or discriminate against specific religions.

via english.ahram.org.eg

‘I hereby divorce you!’ Egypt’s verbal divorce phenomenon surges

Al Arabiya English, by Sonia Farid

Egyptian president suggests ground-breaking legislation to ban Muslim husbands from verbally declaring their spouses divorced. (Shutterstock)

“Can’t we have a law that makes divorce only effective when it is documented?” asked Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in a televised speech he gave at the Police Day celebration on January 24. “If marriage is documented then the same should apply to divorce.” Sisi then addressed the Azhar Grand Imam Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, who was among the attendees: “Don’t you agree with me, your eminence?”

He then playfully added, “You are giving me a hard time, your eminence!” Sisi was referring to verbal divorce through which a Muslim husband can end the marriage through uttering the words, “I, hereby, divorce you.” Throughout the few days that followed the speech, the issue of verbal divorce has become the talk of the town with growing speculations over an imminent legislation and equally growing debates on the possibility of changing what is seen as an integral part of Islamic family law.

For journalist Mahmoud Bakri, what seemed like a joke between Sisi and Tayeb is actually an indication of the tension between the presidency and al-Azhar as far as religious discourse is concerned. “This is not the first time Sisi criticizes al-Azhar for not embarking on serious attempts to adapt religious laws to modern times and to correct untruthful conceptions of Islamic ideology,” he wrote. “True, Sisi has been calling for a reform in Azhar as a means to combat terrorism both in Egypt and the Islamic world, but now his criticism was also directed at the way al-Azhar handles family law.”

Controversy

Bakri noted that talk about banning verbal divorce started in mid-2016 based on a book entitled Verbal Divorce Ban for Documented Marriages in Egypt by professor of comparative jurisprudence at al-Azhar University Saad al-Din al-Helali. “A committee to discuss the matter was formed by al-Azhar. It included representatives of the four Islamic schools of thought as well as historians and theologians and they agreed against the ban.” Bakri argues that Sisi is asking al-Azhar to reconsider its position. “This puts al-Azhar is a very awkward situation since it either takes the president’s request seriously or risk an escalation of tension with the presidency.”

Sisi’s call for banning verbal divorce stirred much controversy among religious scholars. Islamic preacher Khaled al-Gindi, who had previously filed a lawsuit against the prime minister, the Ministry of Justice, and al-Azhar’s grand imam to demand banning verbal divorce but dropped it following Sisi’s speech, argued that verbal divorce does not count. “There are two contracts, one for marriage and another for divorce. Only the second can annul the first,” he said. “If a man divorces his wife verbally 20,000 times, this has no value whatsoever.” Gindi noted that verbal divorce was only valid at a time when all contracts were verbal and documentation did not exist. “Verbal contracts were totally eliminated in 1931 and ever since every deal has to be documented.”

Professor of Islamic law at al-Azhar University Ahmed Kereima argued that all transactions were originally verbal and the words said were translated into action. “Any contract is based on wording because wording is indicative of an intention to do a certain action,” he said. “Documentation is only an administrative formality that aims at preserving the rights of the parties involved in this contract.” According to Kereima, verbal divorce has been valid since the establishment of the Islamic nation and is agreed upon by the four schools of thought and by the majority of scholars. “It is also part of the Quran and the prophet’s teachings, so demanding otherwise is absolutely unacceptable because this would be a secularization of God’s laws.” When asked if banning verbal divorce would reduce growing divorce rates as Sisi said in his speech, Kereima replied in the negative. “When a man divorces his wife verbally while he is angry or ill or without meaning it, he can seek advice from al-Azhar which can then find a way out for him since divorce has to be based on a firm intention to end the marriage,” he said. “Plus, society needs to adapt to the rules of Islam not the other way round.”

Egypt’s Grand Mufti Sheikh Shawki Allam said that Dar al-Iftaa, the institution in charge of issuing religious edicts, receives an average of 3,200 inquiries about verbal divorce. “After thorough investigation of each case and after looking into the husband’s intentions and the circumstances under which verbal divorce took place, only three of them prove to be an actual divorce,” he said.

Proof
Preacher Mazhar Shahin said that there are hundreds of cases where women are trying to prove that they were verbally divorced and cannot remarry because of that. “All these women remain in limbo for they are neither married nor divorced and have no right to remarry because no document proves they were divorced,” he said. Shahin added that as “guardian” of the Egyptian nation, Sisi has the right to “restrict the permitted,” as he put it, if this is in the best interest of his nation.

MP and professor of theology Amna Nosseir said that Sisi’s request “sent ripples across stagnant water,” as she put, since it brought back to the forefront one of the most critical problems Egyptian families face. “I think that the Committee of Religious Affairs at the House of Representatives should start taking the necessary steps towards drafting a legislation that bans verbal divorce,” she said, adding that she will fully provide members of the committee with the scholarly help they would need in this regard.

MP and secretary general of the Committee of Religious Affairs at the House of Representatives Amr Hamroush said that the committee will be ready in a few days with a draft law that regulates verbal divorce. “We will meet with representatives of major religious institutions and prominent scholars to discuss the law and make sure it does not contradict Islamic law,” he said. “The law aims at protecting Egyptian families from disintegration and at preserving the rights of the wife and the children and it will include fines and jail sentences for violators.” MP and member of the same committee Mohamed Shaaban argued that the new law is a manifestation of respect for women as stipulated in Islam. “A woman will no longer be under the mercy of a few words said by an angry husband during an argument,” he said.
 

via english.alarabiya.net

Egypt: The January revolution six years on

Ahram Online, by Ziad Bahaa-Eldin

I don’t think there’s one Egyptian who hasn’t paid some price over the last six years in the conflicts and crises the country experienced following the January 25 revolution, though the price certainly differed from one person to the next

Some gave their lives in defense of a right or principle or for the security of the nation and its citizens’ safety. Some of these continue to risk their lives every day. Others lost their eyes or limbs, and scores of people fell victim to vague laws, unfair trials, and political conflicts wrapped in a cloak of legality.

Even more people saw their businesses falter, their enterprises upended, and their jobs lost, and families bid farewell to children who went searching for another country. Those who didn’t lose their lives, freedom, or business lost friends, neighbors, and relatives amid conflicts that divided the country into opposing camps.

If we add the economic crisis, political resentments, and terrorism, the question of whether the January revolution was a blessing or a curse inevitably arises. Was it a victory for the people or a conspiracy against the nation? A step forward that opened the gates of freedom, equality, and justice, or a setback to incremental reform that could have achieved more than we have now?

In my view, these are the wrong questions to understand what happened in Egypt or to issue a judgment on the January revolution. Popular revolutions, especially when lacking organised leadership, cannot be measured by direct, short-term results because they aren’t a conscious, planned act. They are a sudden transformation of unknown outcome expressing a severe dysfunction in society, despair of gradual reform, and irresolvable economic, social, and political contradictions at the moment of eruption. That was Egypt in January 2011.

The revolution, then, was neither right nor wrong. It was inevitable. Regardless of the gains and losses, the January revolution will stand as the expression of the moment when Egyptians chose to break their fetters, dream of change, and abandon fear and passivity to take to the streets demanding freedom, equality, and justice. If such demands and dreams seem distant today, we can’t deny that millions of people took to the streets and squares. It doesn’t mean that what happened is a foreign conspiracy, and it doesn’t diminish the sacrifices Egyptians made.

So was it all for nothing? Not in my opinion. Despite the difficulties and challenges, Egypt today is not the same. We have hard-won, rich experience from which we have learned. We’ve fought several electoral battles. We have party experiences that brought a new generation into politics, a good constitution that can be built upon no matter how the state disregards it, and constitutional legitimacy based on both January 25 and June 30.

We have a continual dynamism in a society looking for a way out of the present crises, and we have young people who continue to cling to their right to freedom and the rule of law. We have mistakes made by all political currents, and we’ve learned from them. We have artists, writers and thinkers that seek out new paths whenever the state tries to nationalise and appropriate channels of expression and creativity. And we have a patient, steadfast people able to overcome all crises, but they have legitimate demands that must be met.

If change is a dream that has haunted Egyptians for six years even as it faced numerous setbacks, it doesn’t mean that it’s only attainable with a new revolution and with people again taking to the streets. Change is possible, and necessary, but by different means that seek to meet the hopes and aspirations of Egyptians while also respecting their desire for security, stability, and incremental change.

Read on here. 

via english.ahram.org.eg

Netanyahu backs Trump's Mexico wall, touts similar one on Egypt border as 'great idea'

Fox News, by Joseph Weber

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday expressed his support for President Trump’s controversial plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, saying the barrier he built along his country’s southern border “stopped all illegal immigration” and was a “great idea.”

Trump on Wednesday signed executive actions to start the construction of a continuous, “physical” wall, making good on a campaign promise to keep out illegal immigrants from Mexico, particularly “rapists” and drug dealers.

"Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders," Trump declared. "We are going to save lives on both sides of the border."

Trump has forged ahead on the wall promise, despite Mexico refusing to pay the bill, as Trump said it would.

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto responded almost immediately Wednesday to Trump’s declaration, saying in a nationally televised address that he regrets and rejects the president’s decision, nixing a planned meeting between the two leaders.

Wall construction is projected to cost $8 billion to $20 billion, with Congress scrambling for ways to promptly find the money.

The president's executive orders also call for hiring 5,000 additional border patrol agents and 10,000 more immigration officers, though the increases are subject to the approval of congressional funding.

“President Trump is right,” tweeted Netanyahu, who is trying to forge a better relationship with Trump than the one he had with previous President Obama. “I built a wall along Israel's southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea.”

The southern wall in Israel -- completed in 2013 after two years of construction and paid for by Israel -- is not the West Bank barrier, built to end terror attacks launched from Palestinian Arab cities.

The barrier was built because Israel was facing problems from the influx of tens of thousands of African illegal immigrants through Egypt -- mostly from Eritrea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast and Nigeria and seeking employment and asylum. 

Many of the immigrants were escaping the atrocities in Darfur, but their arrival also coincided with an spike in crime, more burden on the Israeli health system and other social problems.

Those coming into the U.S. from the south are seeking better economic conditions and include people fleeing El Salvador and other parts of Central America, ravaged by poverty, violence and other consequences of the region’s drug wars.

via www.foxnews.com

Nigeria: Female Suicide Bombers Now Strap Babies On Back to Evade Detection

If mothers are capable of such actions, then there is no hope for this world. Down the drain we all go. 

AllAfrica.com, by Agency Report

The Defence Headquarters says female suicide bombers in the north-east are now evading detection from security operatives by carrying babies on their back, that ordinarily passes them for innocent nursing mothers.

The Acting Director Defence information, Rabe Abubakar, said in a statement in Abuja on Friday that the attention of the DHQ had been drawn to the new tactic.

Mr. Abubakar, a brigadier general, said the two recent suicide bomb attacks in Madagali, Adamawa State are instructive in this regard.

"The DHQ wishes to seize this opportunity to appeal to members of the public to be patient and cooperate with the military and other security agencies while carrying out thorough security search and checks as the essence is to nip in the bud the murderous intention of the Boko Haram suicide bombers.

"The DHQ wishes to state further that the usual traffic "go-slow" at military and security check points as a result of rigorous security checks are not meant to cause public discomfort or a deliberate action to induce traffic disruptions on our roads, but an effort put in place towards protecting the lives and properties of our innocent citizens.

"Members of the public are, therefore, urged to always volunteer useful information to the military and other security agencies that would assist in exposing Boko Haram and their evil machinations in our society and to make our communities safe and secure for all to live," he said.

(NAN)

via allafrica.com

On Cue With Elon Musk, A Solar Power Company Blooms In The Egyptian Desert

Forbes, by Elizabeth MacBride

Building on the planned Karm Solar startup campus in Egypt. Photo: Karm Solar

CAIRO—About a half-million solar panels were installed every day around the world last year, according to the International Energy Agency. Costs for solar photovoltaics are expected to drop by 25% by 2020, making solar — already competitive — cheaper than other forms of energy in many cases.

Smart entreprepreneurs will get ahead of that curve. In Cairo, I met the CEO and chief architet of a company, Karm Solar, that has been in the forefront of solar since 2011 — back when solar was in the doldrums. I first read about Karm Solar in Startup Rising, a book by U.S.-based venture investor Christopher M. Schroeder.

Karm Solar has come a long way since then. Now that the company has recurring revenue that comes from its construction of solar power stations and sale of the power, Ahmed Zahran said he expects the company to be profitable this year. It’s the only company in Egypt with a license to do those installations; Karm then sells power to businesses. It also leases solar power installations, working with EFF Hermes Leasing to set up financing for customers.

Karm Solar, which now has 52 employees, aims to raise $70 million from institutional investors this year. It's a model of one method of scaling up: by diversification.

Back in 2011, Ahmed Zahran, 36, couldn’t get his employer to invest in his idea for solar-powered water pumps. They seemed a no-brainer to him in the Egyptian desert, where there is a lot of water under the ground and plenty of sunshine on top of it.

So he and about half a dozen co-founders, raised money from 20 angels, in increments ranging from $10,000 to $1 million. They looked for people who could give them advice as well as cash.

Along with branch of the company producing the water pump — the revenue generating arm, with eight clients — the company has a design/build branch focusing on eco-friendly structures. It recently completed a $1.1 million workers’ village in the desert for an herb farm. Built with local stone, the village is carbon neutral. “We reduced the amount of bricks and construction by 85%,” Zahran said.

It uses 78 kilowatts of solar power. “Cooking is the only thing that runs on natural gas.”

Making solar panels pretty

“How we design buildings matters,” said Karim El Kafrawi, principal architect. “If we can design them in a more eco friendly way so we can reduce our reliance on artificial cooling and heating, it’s easier to supply entirely with renewable energy.”

Karm Solar also hoping to put a new spin on solar, making it attractive. In this, they’re following the lead of Elon Musk, who has introduced solar panel roof tiles. But the Middle East doesn’t have pitched roofs — which means it needs a different approach.

“One of the obstacles to solar panels is the looks,” said El Kafrawi. “Designers are reluctant to incorporate panels.”

With an alliance with an woman-owned Egyptian design brand, Azza Fahmy, which will help it design buildings and solar mountings, Karm Solar hopes to change that. "The first building "Azza Fahmy Building" will actually be the KarmSolar Campus in Sahl Hasheesh (south of Hurghada) where we will have our R&D and part of our operations," Zahran said by email.

Though he is aiming high, Zahran is realistic about the challenges that face his company. So far, it’s been lean: It’s burned through $7.5 million to get to profitability, a small amount from a world point of view, but much larger, of course, in Egypt. The financing has been half debt and half equity. But Egypt has its upsides, too, starting with the size of the domestic market of 90 million.

via www.forbes.com

Trump Prepares To Halt Syrian Refugee Admissions, Limit Muslim Entry

The Huffington Post

POOL VIA GETTY IMAGES Donald Trump promised to heavily restrict immigration from countries with Muslim-majority populations.

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump is preparing to issue an executive order dramatically restricting refugee admissions to the U.S. and denying visas to individuals from countries his administration deems high-risk, according to congressional and advocacy organization sources briefed on a draft.

The executive order could still change before Trump signs it, which could happen this week. According to sources, administration officials are considering:

• Blocking refugees from war-torn Syria from entering the U.S. indefinitely.

• Suspending all refugee admissions for 120 days while the administration determines which countries pose the least risk.

• Temporarily suspending visa issuances to people in countries where the administration considers security screening inadequate ― meaning people from those countries couldn’t enter the U.S. at all.

• Capping total refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017 at 50,000 ― less than half of the 110,000 proposed by the Obama administration.

Sources briefed on the draft executive order said the list of countries targeted is not yet finalized, but those under consideration ― Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen ― are all Muslim-majority nations. Trump vowed last year to suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” as one of his first moves.

In its current form, the executive order would allow Trump to claim victory on one of his main campaign promises ― a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” But because it would allow some Muslims from countries other than the list of “high-risk” nations to enter the U.S., it falls short of that vow.

The White House and the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment. Trump hinted at an announcement in a Tweet on Tuesday night.

Although it reflects anti-refugee sentiment spreading worldwide, the draft of Trump’s order represents a dramatic upending of current U.S. policy toward some of the globe’s most unstable regions. It will inevitably face opposition from human rights groups, civil liberties organizations, Democrats and even members of the Christian right, who have encouraged a sympathetic approach to the refugee crisis.  

Read on here. 

via www.huffingtonpost.com

America, You Look Like an Arab Country Right Now

Brilliant! Worth reposting in its entirety!

Politico Magazine, by Karl Sharro

A potential new flag for the United States

Welcome to the club!

Dear America,

We have been watching the drama of your presidential elections with much interest and curiosity for some time now. It’s hard not to notice the many similarities between our own countries and yours. From fiery inauguration protests and bitter disputes about crowd size, to the intelligence service’s forays into politics and the rise of right-wing extremists, it appears that you are traveling very much in our direction—and at the same time, like us, becoming a curiosity for foreign correspondents trying to explain what’s happening in your region to the world. You might be distraught about where you are headed, but we aren’t! Perhaps this will be an opportunity to put our differences aside and recognize how similar we are.

Let’s start at the beginning. During the campaign we were surprised to learn of the influence that the head of the American mukhabarat (state security, i.e. your FBI) can wield over the election process, simply by choosing to pursue a certain line of investigation. As you may know, this has been a constant feature of our politics since independence. Our surprise turned to astonishment when we started to witness the blossoming feud between the then-president-elect and the American mukhabarat, another important feature of Arab politics.

On top of that, we started to hear reports of foreign meddling in your elections, which some say may have influenced the result. Of course, we are quite familiar with that situation, too, not least because of the efforts of your own administrations over the decades. Yet it came as a surprise to hear talk of “foreign hands” and “secret agendas” in a country like America. We sympathize.

On the bright side, this was also the moment that the conspiracy theories started to spread. You know us; we’re quite fond of conspiracy theories—particularly when they involve plots by external powers—and consider ourselves connoisseurs of the genre. Your plots are a bit rough around the edges, we have to admit, but top marks for creativity. Was the election of Trump a Russian conspiracy? Was talk of the Russian conspiracy a liberal conspiracy to undermine Trump? Did the mukhabarat leak information to help Trump? Did the mukhabarat leak information to hurt Trump? Was media coverage of Trump’s mukhabarat conspiracy theories part of a liberal conspiracy theory to bring him down? They’re all so deliciously complex and open-ended, much like our own.

Things started to get even more interesting when your liberals started to rally around the heroic CIA branch of the mukhabarat in order to fend off the threat of extremists in power and external meddling from Russia. You will recall that we have had similar experiences in recent years in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, and we were disappointed when the world didn’t understand our position. Nonetheless, it was moving to see these public displays of affinity for state security, the enlightened guardians of the nation.

Lately, we have even started to hear rumblings about the American “deep state.” Now that’s also something we’re familiar with, and it raises so many interesting prospects. Will the deep state try to unseat the new president? Will the judiciary try to block his political program? Which side will the Army take? Will foreign correspondents start talking about the “shadow organs of the American state”? How will Hollywood, the entertainment arm of the deep state, use its power to oppose the president? We’re getting dizzy with excitement.

And by the way, speaking of the Army, while we were a little bit disappointed at first that the president doesn’t have a military background, he quickly moved to remedy that by appointing a number of generals to high-level positions within the administration. We are hoping that they will attend Cabinet meetings in their uniforms; there’s something quite reassuring about the leader of the nation being surrounded by military outfits—just consider Saddam Hussein.

Trump is clearly into big military displays. The military marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. The military flying over New York City and Washington D.C. during parades. Here’s someone who really understands how great leaders think. (We can also recommend excellent tailors to make him his own exquisite military uniforms.) Thanks to the new president, we can now use the term “American regime”; your country has fully earned the honor.

Of course, another crucial aspect to this transformation is the president’s contemptuous attitude towards the media. My, the delightful similarities. From blaming the press for engaging in secret conspiracies to undermine him to threatening their access to his White House palace to refusing to take questions from certain reporters, President Trump reminds us of several of our own leaders. In fact, an Arab leader complaining about CNN coverage is pretty much a staple of our political life.

This took an interesting turn on Saturday when the president accused the media of manufacturing his feud with the mukhabarat and his Minister of Information Mr. Sean Spicer castigated the media for reporting the size of Trump’s inauguration crowd. The not-so-veiled threats by the president and Mr. Spicer to the media are very much in the spirit of Arab governance.

We are waiting to see how exactly President Trump plans to deal with the intrusions of the meddling and irksome press. So far, he reminds us of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who perhaps more than any other leader has been leading the movement to put the press back in its place. Will he continue to follow Mr. Erdogan’s example of gradually diluting the freedom of the press or will he choose the Arab approach and replace the entire media with one or two state media organs?

The moment at which we felt real solidarity with the American people, though, was when we started hearing BBC reporters talking to your citizens with the patronizing tone they normally reserve for the Middle East. Correspondents were sent to far-flung corners of the United States to talk to farmers and factory workers to try to understand how they feel and to ask condescending questions. I’m from the British Broadcasting Corporation, are you familiar with the BBC? Where do you get your news from? Do you feel angry? Does religion play a role in how you are voting?. (The only thing missing were pictures of people with blue ink on their thumbs; please consider introducing that practice in the future.)

There was talk, too, of rural strongholds and urban bastions. Deep social and geographic divisions whose origins go back in time. They’re not quite tribal divisions, but there was more than enough religious and political sectarianism to ignite our interest. Who are the liberals and the conservatives and how did their disagreement begin? What’s the difference between alt-right and the Tea Party? What’s the origin of the schism between the neo-conservatives and paleoconservatives? Watching foreign correspondents trying to explain the differences was mesmerizing.

And then there’s the unrest. In the lead up to the inauguration, we started to hear about youth protests against the new regime. Come on! This is bordering on plagiarism now. Please write your own plots and stop borrowing ours. Although, we usually wait for leaders to take power before we start protesting; we like your preemptive revolution approach.

And the inauguration, what a spectacular show: protests, riots, tear gas—it had all the necessary ingredients of an Arab revolution. We saw pictures of broken windows at Bank of America, and a limo engulfed in flames. The Black Block apparently made an appearance. Someone burned an effigy of Mr. Trump and an American flag. (OK that was in Canada, but still). We look forward to more of those moments being captured on camera and turned into photo essays in the foreign press.

If you want these protests to be successful spectacles, though, here are a few crucial tips: Use social media and talk about the importance of Twitter and Facebook in spreading the protest movement. Make sure to highlight that your movement is leaderless and organic. Emphasize the fact that you don’t belong to any traditional political parties or have established ideologies. Come up with catchy slogans. And above all, make sure you stress that you are the moderates. Journalists and analysts like to hear this stuff, as we discovered during our own protests.

And be careful about receiving help from external powers. We hear that both Canada and Mexico might try to interfere in your internal politics. With the Russians already involved, this is promising to shape up into an international confrontation. Be prepared for a flood of think-pieces about whether intervention in America is right or wrong, whether regime change can come quickly or whether it will become a protracted conflict, whether a proxy war is in the cards.

A word of warning though, before embarking on this path. We tried the revolution thing ourselves, and it didn’t work out so well. Maybe you should just adapt to living in the new regime. We were always told that having a strongman in charge is the best solution for Arab countries, otherwise there would be chaos. Perhaps the American people are not ready for democracy after all. Let’s face it America, you look like an Arab country now.

Sincerely,

The Arab World

Ps. We have taken the liberty of re-designing your flag; do you like it? Also, we’re attaching an application form to the Arab League, consider joining.

via www.politico.com

Divided we stand

We live in an era where polarization rules. Outspoken and opinionated, people all over the world flaunt their views regarding significant as well as insignificant matters, in the process revering or detesting by choice. This is caused by social media and immediate access to news, but it becomes daunting and disconcerting if the way issues and public figures are evaluated affect the course that a country pursues.

Take President Obama’s tenure as an example. Some Americans and non-Americans, in particular Middle Easterners, counted the hours and minutes till Obama exited the Oval Office; this while others thanked their lucky stars that Obama occupied the Oval Office when he did. Besides being an articulate communicator and a scandal free family man, Obama lifted the US from the economic abyss that preceded his presidency; that is what some say. This while others, including President Bush, Junior himself, as The New Yorker satirically mentioned, counted the days until Bush was no longer the worst president and was superseded by Obama.

Take President Trump as another example. President Trump received the worst approval ratings for a president-elect in all his recent predecessors, and yet he secured the presidency of the most powerful country in the world. During his presidential campaign, he aggravated many including the disabled, the gay community, most minorities, NATO, and those south of the border, but others hailed him as the awaited game changer, the president who will make America great again. While some waited feverishly to see him enter the White House, anti-trump protestors took to the streets and clashed with police leading to many arrests and injuries.

Trump inauguration protests were followed by the Women’s March that flooded American and worldwide cities with approximately five million marchers of which one million were in Washington, DC, alone. Americans are deeply divided on this one, and the jury is still out thus far.

In Egypt we are no better; in fact, we may be in a worse state, polarized as in no other times: from Ahly Club to Zamalek Club polarized fans, from Aboutrika’s to Tiran and Sanafir’s court cases, and, more importantly, from pro- to anti-Sisi views, Egyptians remain split.

Let’s start off with what seems insignificant but is still proof of the existing polarization. Ahly Club fans cheer their players and club all the way, as they should, but shouldn’t they cheer for Zamalek if it plays against an international club? Injuring their noses to spite their faces, they don’t, and as convoluted as it is, Ahly fans forget that Zamalek is an Egyptian club after all. The saying “My cousin and I against the stranger” should apply here, but it doesn’t.

Now to more pressing matters. Just about everyone in Egypt knows and is absolutely sure beyond any shadow of a doubt that the two islands Tiran and Sanafir are Egyptian or Saudi depending on their allegiance. Proof, maps, documents, presidential speeches were utilized to prove one’s opinion one way or another. Now that the courts ruled in favour of rejecting the transfer of the two islands to Saudi Arabia, some gloat with satisfaction. Chances are those in glee hardly heard of Tiran and Sanafir prior to the kerfuffle. Indeed, the uproar may have had little to do with sovereignty and more to do with proving one’s point and coming out as the winner.

Aboutrika is another case in point. A person can be a football star and a Muslim Brotherhood member simultaneously, but Egyptians prefer to see him as one or the other. So now that the courts added Aboutrika’s name to the terror list, Egypt is divided yet again.

Some hail Aboutrika’s successes and stardom, and the fact that any international club would’ve paid a fortune to have him join its team. The “Magician,” as he was once dubbed, had others belittling from such achievements, bringing up his support for ex-President Morsi, his commiseration of the mother of one of the Kerdassa killers, and his refusal to shake hands with Field Marshall Sisi as proof that he is pro-MB and, hence, not a loyal Egyptian but a terrorist.

The culmination of the division is in how Egyptians perceive President Sisi. From day one, while the majority of Egyptians stood beside Field Marshall Sisi, a group remained steadfast in its refusal of how ex-President Morsi was removed, the return of a military man to rule, and the method by which Rabaa was stormed. This set the stage for the ongoing and lasting critical views of anything President Sisi initiates and endorses.

President Sisi is blamed for the deep-rooted and ingrained shortcomings in Egyptian norms and the continuous flow of terrorism in Sinai. No matter how determined President Sisi is to take Egypt over the hump of demise, this group will forever focus on the underlying ills. President Sisi is, in their eyes, accountable for all that befalls Egypt unable to recognize that, in hindsight, Egypt had been ailing for decades.

Obama may have blundered and erred especially towards the Middle East, but he served Americans well; similar blemishes and successes will apply to President Trump for no one is infallible, and nothing is black or white, no pun intended.

Aboutrika’s agile abilities have nothing to do with his allegiance and loyalty, and the courts should be where the ownership of Tiran and Sanafir is decided not on Facebook and Twitter.

As for President Sisi, Egyptians should continue to expect the best from the man, ask him to work night and day for Egypt, and criticize his shortfalls; this while remaining fair and objective. While they should never overlook his failures, they should cite and appreciate his successes, recognizing the mammoth obstacles he is working against.

It is quite acceptable to think differently, but it isn’t acceptable when attitudes break the bonding thread of a country. Better yet, be divided, but don’t be divided in loving Egypt. United we must stand in that.

Translators are struggling to interpret Donald Trump

SBS News, by Ben Winsor

Run on sentences and disjointed syntax have created an ethical dilemma for interpreters.

Translators around the world reported that it’s a struggle to accurately interpret Donald Trump’s speeches, statements and interviews – a challenge which shows no signs of abating as the dominant newsmaker assumes the world’s most influential office.

“For translators, Trump is an unprecedented and desolating struggle,” wrote professional translator Bérengère Viennot in the French version of Slate last month.

In the widely circulated article, Ms Viennot lamented the president’s disjointed syntax, run-on sentences and limited vocabulary.

“When it comes to speaking of something other than his victory, he clings desperately to the words contained in the question put to him, without succeeding in completing his own thought,” she wrote.

“The poverty of the vocabulary is striking.”

Ms Viennot – who isn’t a fan of the newly inaugurated leader – says that as a translator Mr Trump’s speech puts her in an ethical dilemma.

If she translates him directly French listeners may struggle to understand, but if she translates him into smoother, intelligible speech she risks making him sound like “an ordinary politician who speaks properly.”

Soraya Caicedo, executive producer of the Spanish Language program for SBS radio said translating Mr Trump could be a challenge.

“He aims to speak not as a president would speak, he speaks as someone in the community would speak,” she said.

“I wouldn’t say that it’s difficult in terms of the words, but for people from South America it can be difficult to interpret his meaning.”

Balancing clarity while retaining the style of speech can be a struggle, as can be relaying the president’s sarcasm and metaphors.

“When he says Mexicans are rapists, he’s talking about crime, but when he says China is raping America, he’s talking about economics,” Ms Caicedo said.

“We cannot translate it literally as ‘China is sexually abusing America’.”

Other phrases can gain new meaning when interpreted for foreign audiences.

Make America Great Again can sound like ‘Make America Powerful Again’ in the minds of many Spanish language listeners Ms Caicedo.

“When he says ‘Make America Great Again’, we are thinking of the kind of America that used to intervene in governments in Latin America,” she said, noting instances of US intervention in Chile, Nicaragua and El Salvador.

Ms Caicedo said the leaked of a video of Trump bragging about being able to do whatever he wanted to women posed a particular challenge.

“There are some words I wouldn’t say in a media context, as a journalist or even – in my case – as a woman,” she said.

It was a balancing act between moderating the language, but still reporting accurately on what was said.

“It’s an added responsibility for us journalists who have to translate what he has to say,” she said.

Accurate translations can be vitally important in global politics, especially when it comes to powerful leaders.

In 2006 debate broke out over whether the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” or merely predicted that the government would “vanish from the pages of history”.

Reports that Vladimir Putin labeled Trump ‘intelligent’ or ‘a genius’ have been similarly contested (A more accurate translation would have been that Trump was ‘bright’ as in ‘colourful’).

via www.sbs.com.au