Cognitive Dissonance: An Egyptian Saga!

They say Aesop was a Greek writer who lived some 600 years before Christ, they say he was credited for a number of succinct stories that feature animals or mythical creatures and that his stories or "fables" almost entirely held moral lessons. Yet, Aesop's existence remain uncertain, so does the existence of Shakespeare, Swedish trolls and the monsters of Loch Ness. But, it doesn't matter, his fables survived and are a vivid proof that someone must have written them, be it Aesop or a bunch of Aesops! 

Historians tend to doubt the existence of many historical figures and events, but what do they know, they even doubt the existence of Orcs claiming they are just a fragment of J. R. R. Tolkien's imagination: Bollocks, I have seen many Orcs in Egypt during the early days of the revolution, mostly in uniform, some even wore shades and spoke in Arabic, but it's not within the scope of this article to prove that Orcs exist! I saw them and 3arabawy has a full set of pictures of them in his famous Piggipedia!. 

Bottom line, some of humanity's most doubted figures (like Aesop) must have existed. It's what they left behind that matters the most. Maybe they had different names or different personas, but the smell is always the same wherever they landed, the smell they enforced on time and place: The smell of hope. On the other hand some of humanity's worst nightmares (like Tolkien's Orcs) exist, maybe with different names, different ears or a different lingo but the smell is always the same wherever they land, the smell they enforce on time and place: The smell of fear, and mind you, both hope and fear have very distinctive smells!

One of Aesop's fables: "The fable of the Fox and the Grapes" reads as follows:

"Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked, 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.' People who speak disparagingly of things that they cannot attain would do well to apply this story to themselves."

The fable discusses what's known in social psychology as cognitive dissonance, which is simply the state of agitation caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The fox is hungry and would have loved to reach the grapes and satisfy his hunger, yet Alas he couldn't and his only way out was to discredit the grapes thus relieving his mind from the agony caused by holding those two equally strong yet contradicting thoughts: Hunger and the inability to reach the grapes. Falsely claiming the grapes were sour resolves the conflict and the fox can move on with his life.

Prior to January, 25th 2011, Aesop's fox dominated the Egyptian political scene. To the majority of Egyptians, ousting the regime seemed impossible, the NDP were taking all the leading positions in the country, the police were brutal, resilient and apparently invincible and the choices the nation had for a valid successor of "he who must forever not be named" were limited only to his son or a bunch of unknowns who lacked both the popularity and the vision to run for office. (Ayman Nour might be an exception but again Ayman Nour was/is not Saad Zaghloul). The cost of a revolution -if ever- is dire and therefore the nation resorted to Aesop's fox's logic: A revolution is sour grapes!

The revolutionary individuals (hardly "forces" back then) lost hope and therefore had nothing else of value to lose. Years of brutalization, suppression, wire-tapping, web-tapping, arbitrary detention, torture, fake trials and false imprisonment  has left the majority of them with no other option but to revolt. The question was when. They were the least of all the parties in the Egyptian political scene to  suffer from cognitive dissonance simply because they already suffered too much for nothing, suffering for the sake of a revolution sounded logical and maybe poetic. They knew that freedom had a price and were willing to pay it, if you won't count what they have already paid in advance. The grapes are not sour at all!

The rest of the nation suffered cognitive dissonance with varying degrees of acuteness. Though freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the ousting of "he who must forever not be named" were legitimate demands, the price was too high and they preferred to await an "impossible" reform from "within" rather than help or take part in enforcing a reform to take place. The grapes were very sour!

Today, cognitive dissonance still characterizes the Egyptian silent majority, probably for different reasons and on different issues. But, day-by-day the confusion is lessening, the fox has already reached the grapes and no matter how hard it was to reach it, the fox can eat and satisfy his hunger and the day will come when he will look back at this particular period of his life and smile. The grapes were worth every drop of sweat and every drop of blood and "three pairs of sneakers in my case!". The Muslim brotherhood are probably the only political group not suffering from cognitive dissonance, their pragmatism and ability to enjoy the taste of someone else's grapes or even claim the grapes to be their's makes them delusional rather than anything else!

As for SCAF, Cognitive dissonance is bound to harass them for a while for they still believe they own the vine, the grapes and probably the fox!

On Decency!

"woman is the nigger of the world" is a song written and recorded by John Lennon and Yoko Ono in 1972. The shocking title and bitter lyrics didn't qualify the song to rank higher than a humble #57 on the billboard hot 100 ranking. The song was withdrawn from the British charts and the song's title was a cause for apology by those who wanted to play the song on radio stations. John -as always- was proud of the song and it's shocking "politically incorrect" title and was proud of Ono's participation in the song's lyrics and the coining of the title. Yet, no matter how much I agree or disagree with the song's lyrics or title, it's "his Lennonness" who co-wrote this song, the same man who wrote "Imagine" and "working class hero", I remain bedazzled and perplexed at his boldness and earnestness and I can't help but admire the man and his daring piece of work. I can't disagree with John: I'm only human you know!

In Egypt, women are not happier than women in other areas of the world, in fact, Egyptian women suffer discrimination, prejudices, judgments, harassment and violence, probably like many other parts of the world yet, what makes the Egyptian situation bizarrely flamboyant is the fact that women throughout Egyptian history were treated as equal to men, some were even goddesses and queens, history books are loaded with female figures who ruled, governed and (literally) got worshiped by Egyptians. We hear of Isis, Nefertiti, Hatshepsut, Virgin Mary, Aisha, Khadija, Fatima Al-Zahra'a, Shagaret Al-dur, Safeyya Zaghloul ...  


Yet, something went wrong on the way to the twenty first century and suddenly we stand helpless in a rare moment of hopeless self realization, blogging about sexual harassment and trying to figure out the causes and the cures for such a shameful social disease.


In my humble opinion, sexual harassment in Egypt is a byproduct of the social perception regarding "decency"! As a rule, if a specific human act is not fiercely condemned by the society at large and is therefore not harshly punishable by law, it (the act) is considered acceptable and at some point logical. In Egypt, the first set of questions that are being asked once a sexual harassment account is told are: what was she wearing? where did this take place? why would a "decent" woman walk by herself there? when did this happen? why would a "decent" woman walk alone that late? the general consensus of the society is willing to acknowledge and admit a sexual harassment case only if: the woman was "decently" dressed, was walking in a fairly inhabited area and before 9:00 pm! otherwise, it's her fault. 


I'm willing to accept that every event is identified by two universal measures: time and space. But, adding "decency" to an event's universal characteristics, defies all the rules of nature from quantum physics to the theory of relativity not to mention the Newtonian laws of motion! Decency is a very subjective, hard to measure, hard to define human quality and it's due to this "decency" factor that many policemen engage in sexual harassment and its also due to this decency factor that the law enforcers fail to justly and fairly deal with various cases of harassment.


Yet "decent" women get sexually harassed all the time. Some would argue that the vast majority of sexual harassment victims are "decent" women. Kids, teenagers and even elderly women are victims of sexual harassment. It's sick to imagine or even discuss: but, how indecent can a 9 year old girl be? how sexy, hot or arousing can a 7 year old girl with golden ringlets on a bus or in a park be? What's so indecent about a girl laughing loudly, or a girl wearing tight clothes or even a girl walking by herself on a deserted road drunk at 3:00 am? Where is the Universal   declaration of human rights? What happened to: We are here to protect and serve? Where did all the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad go? What about Batman, Spiderman or Zorro? Why do the teachings of our idols fail to exist when we need them the most!?


It's our consensus of "decency" that needs to change simply because this consensus is: indecent!


Applying the law, harshening the punishment and dedicating a special police force to track down and incarcerate harassers may help control the saddening phenomena but my opinion is that sexual harassment will not cease to exist unless we change our definition and accordingly our perception regarding what's decent and what's not.


You want a proof to my debate, think of SCAF, think of the military police then think of the excuses they gave for performing the most bizarre act in the history of harassment: Date: March 10, 2011. Time: Sometime before noon. Place: A makeshift detention facility at the Egyptian museum in Tahrir square. Act: Virginity tests being performed on 18 women. "The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine," an anonymous general told a CNN reporter.


The general's possibly meant: "The girls who were detained were not as decent as your daughter or mine"

Image by Rong Jiaojiao

... and Justice for all!

Many people I know stutter pathetically when asked to tell the difference between what's "good" and what's "right", what's "bad" and what's "wrong". Music fans would argue that blues is good but rock is right. Heavy metal is bad and thrash metal is wrong.

In Arabic music terms 'Fairouz' is good and 'Om Kolthoum' is right, 'Shaabolla' is bad and 'Tamoura' is wrong. Some people would argue differently, It's 'Fairouz' that deserves to be "right" while 'Thouma' is barely good. It doesn't matter, after all there is nothing really good, right, bad or wrong in music. Yet, in politics what's good vs. what's right is a fundamental argument and being able to tell distinctive differences is mandatory to every society on the verge of writing a new social contract. nevertheless, Tamoura is wrong!

In modern philosophy, Good refers to the moral quality of a human act, while right is a function of the conformity of a given human act to a moral principle. In simpler English: Good refers to moral quality say justice, while right is the measure of conforming to justice, i.e. Applying the law.

John Rawls, an American philosopher wrote a legendary book in the early 70s called "A Theory of Justice" in which he derived two principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle. The liberty principal states that "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.". Basic liberties include the right for expression, political liberty (voting and running for office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest. The liberty principal in Rawls's opinion should never be violated or compromised even for the sake of his second principal, the difference principal which states that Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that:

• they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).
• offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity

If humans were aware of their status, position, wealth or health in their societies then justice will never be served. It's our ignorance of where we typically fit within our societies that urges us to develop a scheme of justice that treats all people within a specific society fairly. 

Mubarak, against Rawls's sociopolitical theory, thought wrongly he knew where he fits in his society, so did his sons, his advisers, his ministers and his party. Mubarak, thought he will continue being a president until death or until he willingly steps down giving way to his son to rule. If you are so sure of where you are, of your destiny and of your future, you will never seek a fair and just scheme in which all people fit. Justice became "Mubarak's" idea of justice, fairness became "Mubarak's" idea of fairness and his conceptions of the good and his psychological propensities were the governing factors in the Egyptian sociopolitical scene. 

Also, Mubarak constructed a huge device that had two main pillars: A very corrupt, very misleading media and a very brutal, very devoted security organization. Those, deprived Egyptians from their basic rights. All of them except the right for personal property which by definition was experienced on a much wider scale by the rich and possibly the corrupt rather than the rest of the nation.

But, Egyptians revolted and Mubarak discovered that his false knowledge of his status within his society has come to an end. yet, the men who are still controlling the Egyptian political scene are not yet aware of this fact, the counter revolutionary forces are simply those who refuse to believe that the principals of justice are devised from behind a veil: a veil of ignorance. Ignorance to what the future may hold for them, the rest of the nation, though not well informed on modern political theories demand to be governed by those principals thus seeking equality, liberty and full grants to their basic rights. 

If John Rawls was still alive , he would have seen his theories uttered, proven and demanded by a large mass of illiterate Egyptians. He would have been very proud. In any case, Egypt requires, demands and insists on a social contract which may lead to a balanced constitution and a free nation. No one is aware of the ultimate good, but everyone should do their best to pursue being right. 

I hope I am.

Of Love and War!

No one I know of should claim coining the saying: "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war" with all it's popular variations, more than the Muslim Brotherhood.

John Lyly, a renaissance English poet and playwright first wrote this famous -often quoted- line in his book 'Euphues' back in 1578. Yet, it wasn't until the end of the second decade of the twentieth century - the date Hassan Al-Banna established the brotherhood - when this famous (or rather infamous) saying got applied both in the name of love and war simultaneously. I am quite sure Lyly was preceded by Niccolo Machiavelli and I'm also sure that many unhappy incidents in the history of man took place due to the application of this saying which basically summarizes the Machiavellian philosophy in "a far less hard to swallow" way. The crusaders killed in the name of God, so did George "the shrub" Bush. But, with the Muslim Brotherhood there is a slight difference that makes them unique in applying Lyly's pithy quotation.

The Brotherhood seek power in the name of God and seek God in the name of bashing (assassination at times) their political opponents thus betraying both the core concepts of love and the core concepts of their religion. Making them opportunists par excellence rather than a classical religious organization by their own definition.

Maybe this was not the case when 22 years old Hassan Al-banna established the brotherhood back in 1928. Egypt then a monarchy under British occupation, the country's secular constitution of 1923 granted the establishment of the brotherhood which started as a political, religious and social movement with the credo, "God is our objective, the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations." If you read this credo today and didn't know it was the original doctrine of the brotherhood, you would easily get confused and you may associate it to the salafi movement of today. Al-Banna called for the full implementation of sharia law based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. His argument was that sharia laws were passed down by God and should therefore be applied to all aspects of life, including the organization of the government and the handling of everyday problems.

History says the brotherhood was a major participant in a series of political assassinations in the 1940s and 1950s, in November 1948 police seized documents and plans of what was thought to be the Brotherhood's `secret apparatus` with names of its members. Subsequently the Egyptian prime minister of Egypt at the time, M.F.Al-Nokrashi, ordered the dissolution of the Brotherhood. Yet, on December 28, 1948 Egypt's Al-Nokrashi was assassinated by a Brotherhood member. A month and half later Al-Banna was killed by men believed to be government agents and supporters of the murdered prime minister. In 1952 members of the Muslim Brotherhood were accused of taking part in arson that destroyed some "750 buildings" in downtown Cairo, mainly the Cairo opera house, night clubs, theaters, hotels, and restaurants.


An attempt on the life of Egypt's second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser was allegedly orchestrated by the brotherhood in 1954 marking the official ban to the brotherhood. Thousands of the brotherhood members were prisoned and tortured. It was not until Sadat came to power in 1970, when he gradually released the imprisoned members of the brotherhood. Sadat then became the enemy of the Brotherhood after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, and was assassinated by a violent Islamist group called Tanzim al-Jihad on October 6, 1981.

This colorful history is known to many Egyptians, disputed by the brotherhood affectionados and denied by orthodox brotherhood members. The brotherhood are extremely evasive when it comes to discussing their past, they claim to have denounced violence long ago and that history was written by their opponents, they majorly confuse literary historical writings with facts and what I have mentioned above are historical facts.

Yet, Islam preaches for peace all through the holy Qura'an. Violence is scorned, rejected and forbidden, the examples from Qura'an are in abundance:

• 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion"
• 16:82 But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you).
• 6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them.
• 17:53, 54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith.
• 21:107 to 109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour (of Judgment) is near or far."
• 22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites (of prayer) which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord (since that is the main objective of religion). You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, (then say,) `God best knows (the value of) what you do."
• 88:21, 22; also see 24:54 And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
• 42:6, 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....
• 60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
• 60:9 Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

The above mentioned verses are a vivid proof that 22 year old Al-Banna clearly misinterpreted Islam and suggested wrongly political assassinations as a solution to resolve political conflicts. but the reason why I wrote this article was mainly to refer to the most interesting piece of information amongst all the above mentioned scary bedtime stories. It's their credo that makes all the difference especially nowadays.

The brotherhood depends on three tactics that have always worked brilliantly for them:

• The first tactic is to exaggerate their capabilities via a set of well structured announcements that would give the receiver the feeling that the brotherhood constitute 30%-40% of the Egyptian voting power. The truth is that the brotherhood members do not exceed 850,000. A huge number yet not so huge in a country of 44 million eligible voters.
• The second tactic is based on evasiveness. The brotherhood will do anything but to clearly apologize for their past not to mention discussing it. They would not clarify where they stand from SCAF, military trials, minorities rights, virginity tests. This is due to their extreme pragmatism while handling any issue where SCAF is involved. Thus winning any minor gain that SCAF may give them on the account of the rest of the political forces in Egypt.
• The third tactic is associating themselves with Islam, such that if you disagree with their political position, you are basically disagreeing with the will of God! This works perfectly with "the religious and the illiterate".

In this article I tried mostly to tackle the brotherhood second tactic. I will write two more articles to tackle their first and third tactics once I have the time. The brotherhood have ruined the political life of Egyptians over nearly a full century but it's not the politics that I am bound to explain or defend. It's Islam that I care for the most. The peaceful religion that was interpreted viciously by the few to rule the many. A good peaceful religion. My religion.

The Idiots guide to killing a revolution!

1. First of all never admit there is a revolution, always refer to the revolution as "the incidents", "the events" or "the demonstrations". 

2. Always make fun of the rebels: the way they talk, the way they express their ideas or the way they comb their hair!

3. Always refer to the rebels as: the innocent youth, innocence suggests lack of experience which might mean: ignorance! It also alienates elderly rebels: old men should never revolt, ever!

4. Always refer to the ousted dictator as the ex-president  and to justify this say: "I'm glad we finally have an ex-president".

5. Know that equality, freedom, social justice. fraternity or bread are Masonic concepts. 

6. Anyone demanding any of the above mentioned ideas is either a Freemason or a deluded prick.

7. Always join groups on facebook that support the so called revolution. Whenever you have a chance post a confusing remark, a conspiracy theory, a gloomy prediction or a song by Amr Diab. Tamer Hosny is a "No" for now. We must still think of a way to regain his popularity after he got bitch slapped in Tahrir!

8. Always believe in the effect of the word "economy" on people, say everywhere how bad the economic situation of the country has become. Don't mention any profits you made in the stock market or any increase in your companies export rates. 

9. Ask people to help turn the wheel of production thus helping the economy. Claim you personally got hernia while blowing the bloody wheel then curse Tahrir and hold your crotch and look in pain!

10. Whenever you hear that people demonstrate on Fridays ask those around you: "do those people have any work"?

11. Baradei is a spy, a war lord, a non believer and a thief. Hate him. And make sure you tell people around you the truth about this American Agent!

12. When praying in Mostafa Mahmoud on Fridays try not to mingle with those around you. They are all hired thugs from Boulaq. Yet, try to look sincere and sorry.

13. Here on: Talaat Zakareya and Adel Imam are your idols. Make sure you talk in favor of their new movies. If people criticize you mention Afaf Shoeib's new series!

14. When few people are around you, and they look sympathetic enough, call Mubarak: baba, then cry making sure your shoulders swing violently as you hide your face with your hands.

15. If you're constipated blame Tahrir. 

16. Know this and say it out loud: I love Amr Moussa.

17. Here on: you're diet is based on beef ribs and pizza.

18. As you have said "yes" to the referendum, always remind people that those who said "No" are against Islam and against stability. People hate blasphemy and turmoil.

19. When heading to the Airport: praise the man who supervised building it. Then sigh, and look thoughtful. Teary eyes at this moment is a killer, so practice!

20. Here on: any bearded man is your enemy. well, even Santa!

21. Whenever something bad happens say: didn't I tell you? to the person next to you. don't worry no one remembers what you say!

22. Tell your friends that you're considering leaving the country. Make sure they believe you. It's trendy to escape nowadays to Europe.

23. Your picture on facebook is either a "Yes" or Baba's picture or a slaughtered dove. A flag is faggoty and unpatriotic!

24. Say your factory is closing down. Your company is bankrupt and your marriage is in danger. Social turmoil is a result of a wicked revolution.

25. Never say the martyrs. Say the dead. If they ask you for an explanation tell them only god knows who's a martyr and who's not. And though your dad died while running after his favorite poodle you call him a martyr so does your mom!

26. Here on: Mortada Mansour is a hero to you. Name your unborn child Mortada!

27. For women: Tell your very close friends that you were kidnapped and raped repeatedly and the rapist(s) kept shouting: foloul, foloul as he spanked you mercilessly! hide your thrill!

28. Read youm7 and spread it's news. It's the only periodical worth reading after Momtaz El-Ott tragic resignation.

29. Whenever you have the chance say this country needs a tough man with a strong grip and long whip! and that demo-cracy is demo-nic for those who can read correctly!

30. Drive fast and look busy. Frown as you avoid running over a street crosser but if you made sure he's one of the rebels run him over, twice!

31. On Thursday nights dump your usual bugsbunny kinky outfit, wear a policeman's uniform and threaten your wife you'll fire tear gas if she doesn't obey! Just look stupid and heartless. It works!

32. Say after me: The snipers in Tahrir were Americans, The drivers of the vans that ran people over were British and the guys who looted all the beef ribs shops and pizzerias were Israelis.

33. Post every video of Al-Howainy, Yaqoub or Shouman on your facebook wall. Share it and write the following comment: Only Baba knew how to control them. Only Baba Can. Only Baba, Baba...

34. Threaten to vote for Tawfiq Okasha and tell your friends: "he's the only viable option". Make sure you convince them, if you couldn't, suggest Mortada. Everyone loves Mortada!

35. Finally, Pray for Baba, for if he got hanged and he might, you will always be able to visit his grave, it's air conditioned, has an international phone and guess what: he built it with your money!

The Dogs of War!

I was never a fan of William Shakespeare. I respect him, admire him and find him inspiring. But, I also think similarly of figures like Muhammad Qandil (the famous Egyptian singer) and Farouq Goweida (a famous Egyptian contemporary poet) Who deserve respect and admiration yet, they bore me out of my wits at times. Well, most of the time! 

Last night, I came across a quote extracted from William Shakespeare's famous play: Julius Caesar, in which Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius) stated in Act 3, scene 1, 270–275:

"and Caesar's spirit, raging for revenge,

With Ate by his side come hot from hell,

Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice

Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war,

That this foul deed shall smell above the earth

With carrion men, groaning for burial."

Basically Mark Antony was in rage over Julius Caesar's assassination and was preparing to strike back at his assassins (Brutus and Cassius), Antony invokes Caesar's spirit and Ate, the Greek goddess of ruin and strife. Ate will charge in with dogs of war, causing havoc on the conspirators. Cry 'Havoc is obviously a call for destruction. Boring, eh? okay, it's over I promise, no more Shakespeare.

What really shocked me is this: I am absolutely positive that Mubarak has never read Shakespeare, has never heard of a play called Julius Caesar and does not even know that "ate" is the past tense of  the verb "eat" not to mention a name for a Greek goddess!

Yet Mubarak's plan to counterattack and thus negate the effect of a long awaited revolution adhered perfectly to Mark Antony's plan to strike back at Brutus and Cassius - the "revolutionary" assassins of Julius Caesar. Antony, with the help of Ate will raise hell on earth and unleash the dogs of war such that even the dead corpses of men will groan for burial (mercy), you can imagine what the living men will beg for (safety and security?)! Okay let me make things clearer: think of Antony as Omar Suleiman, think of Ate as the remaining members of the NDP who are still in power and think of the dogs of war as the Egyptian police, everything will start making sense!

The Egyptian police was and still is the thorn in this country's flesh, heart, soul and dignity. Years and years have passed and the Egyptians suffered the humiliation, abuse, torture, corruption and greed of a brutal monster, lurking in their backyard in the name of state security, personal security and sometimes in the name of patriotism. Before January 25th, 2011, the Egyptian police - following the orders of Mubarak's regime or their own mutilated code of conduct - have enjoyed the status of being invincible, untouchable and in numerous cases above the law. The same law they were sworn to respect and abide to. This is "partly" because of the emergency law (Law No. 162 of 1958) that was applied in Egypt since 1967 (except for an 18-month break in 1980). It has been continuously extended every three years since 1981 and up until this very moment. 

But the main reason - in my opinion- to their audacious, brutal conduct over so many years is due to two main reasons:

1. The absence of a true Independent civil  ombudsman office that would handle all and any complaint and escalate it in the proper channels seeking only justice. (Civil Monitoring)
2. The negative attitude that characterized the Egyptian society over the years due to their inherited firm belief that whatever they do, justice will never be served (especially when your opponent is a police officer).

The Ombudsman idea is not new to Egypt. The first implementation of the Ombudsman was in the form of Wali al-Mazalim introduced in Islamic Judiciary by Omar the second caliphate around 634 AD. It continued through the days of Muhammad Ali who ruled Egypt in 1805 and was cancelled once the 1923 constitution was announced, as the law maker confused the role of the public prosecutor with the role of the ombudsman! It was only logical of a renowned political activist like Hossam El-Hamalawy a.k.a 3arabawy to demand civil monitoring on all civil and non civil organizations including the Egyptian army. Hossam stated these "blasphemous" ideas during a phone interview with an Egyptian TV host on Tahrir satellite channel, Only the idea scared the the TV host out of his wits and the host ended the interview abruptly while mumbling incoherent sentences in the lines of: what do we know about missile weapons to monitor the army? the army is a red line! Hossam came out of this: a hero who stood for what he thought was right and just. The host lost his credibility on air!

Back to the dogs ...

Once Mubarak has fallen, the dogs of war had two fights to go through and they knew they had to win both. The first was their fight against the rebels and their too much-too soon victory. This fight if won would reinstate Mubarak or at the very least another Mubarak in power thus regaining their old status and power. The second was purely a "V for Vendetta" type of fight, a fight for their dignity which suffered major bruises during the revolution, for what is more humiliating than being defeated by a bunch of unarmed civilians shouting "Selmeya" in the faces of men dressed like Samurais, armed better than a Samurai and have neither the ethics nor the morals of a Samurai?! 

The dogs of war roamed the streets of Egypt major cities, accompanied by an army of thugs, firing bullets, scaring unarmed civilians, looting shops, destroying ATM machines, releasing prisoners from jails and detainees from police stations, launching rumors of women being raped, kids being kidnapped and other scary unsubstantiated allegations. But they tried very hard to adhere to their main goal: scare but  don't get caught, if you did: don't worry, you will soon get released and never get close to a foreigner or an embassy, thats a red line. The only red line. That's what I have noticed!

The next step was to make sure they stay away from the streets as long as possible. They wished people would beg for their return to their original status especially that many citizens confuse them (the police) with security and are willing to give up some of their basic liberties in exchange for "feeling" safe. They also orchestrated a few incidents in Atfeeh and Imbaba to fuel up the sectarian conflict in Egypt, this was probably their ace of spades!  

Finally, the dogs of war have deserted their hiding holes, got dressed in their "faggoty white uniforms" and decided to come back to the streets, doing the same things they used to do for thirty long years. The result: four civilians dead after being allegedly tortured in police stations. All for the sake of the show, the show of vulgar expression of gruesome power and deep corruption and the show must go on!

The sound of silence

Yesterday, May the 27th of the Christan year of 2011 witnessed the gathering of tens of thousands of Egyptians in a place they now refer to as "home": Tahrir Square. Their gathering, which started in the last hours of the previous day and continued until the early hours of today was called upon by many political forces, groups and coalitions in an attempt to revive the Egyptian revolution and straighten it's zigzagged path. Egyptians flooded the famous square raising banners and chanting slogans that seemed to remind no one other than themselves with the main goals of their revolution, which have ripen into a specific set of irrelated yet highly logical demands- At the very least - in their own reasoning. 

Hello darkness, my old friend, I've come to talk with you again, because a vision softly creeping, left its seeds while I was sleeping, and the vision that was planted in my brain, still remains, within the sound of silence.

The masses knew where to go, what to do and what to say the moment they reached Tahrir. Liberals gathered by the Kasr-El-Nil entrance, leftists by the Talaat Harb street entrance, so did many tweeps, bloggers, reporters, a few men selling flags, a crazy woman, a music band and a dreamer. The unpoliticized, the moderate and radicalists shared the square in harmony despite their contradicting political affiliations for they had one thing in common and this thing comes on top of their priorities list; above their ideologies, theories, opinions and even above their beliefs. They call this thing Egypt and they believe that "patriotism" is a "belief" too. None of them met George Bernard Shaw and few of them heard of him!

in restless dreams I walked alone, narrow streets of cobblestone, neath the halo of a street lamp, I turn my collar to the cold and damp, when my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light, that split the night, and touched the sound of silence.

I wandered about the square enjoying the dynamic crowds and thinking of the silent majority of Egyptians who were never cursed with the "Tahrir spell!". I was and still am heavily affected by what Tahrir has cast upon me, or the likes of me. Those who believe in social justice, the rule of law, the rights of the unwealthy and unprivileged to a better, hopeful and prosperous life. Yet the silent majority kept humming to my ears, saying things that may defy many of my beliefs and align with many others, things that contradict justice with mercy, prosperity with subordination, law with tradition, wealth with success and consent with religion.The silent majority is not really silent after all and I wished they would stop talking and start doing something--anything!

and in the naked light I saw, ten thousand people maybe more, people talking without speaking, people hearing without listening, people writing songs that voices never shared, no one dared, disturb the sound of silence.

I remembered the song written by Paul Simon back when music meant a little more than Britney Spears and Amr Diab, in which Paul Simon describes a place where people talk without speaking and hear without listening and asked myself if such place truly exists. I'm trying to rationalize what I am witnessing in Egypt: in Tahrir as opposed to many other places, where the silent majority reign is prosperous and flourishing.

"fools," said I, "you do not know, silence like a cancer grows, hear. my words that I might teach you, take my arms that I might reach, you", but my words like silent raindrops fell, and echoed in the wells of silence.

It's true: The Egyptian silent majority hears but never listens. It's not true though that they talk but never speak, I can hear them all the time, in cabs, in public places, in official media, in coffee shops, in grocery stores and worst of all within my own family!. Well, whoever coined the term "the Egyptian silent majority" was either deaf or simply misunderstood the effect of putting two apparently simple words together: Egyptian and silent. The arrangement is illogical for Egyptians in general and as a rule are never silent. If "inactive" is used instead of "silent" everything should fall into place. 

and the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made, and the sign flashed out its warning, in the words that it was forming
And the sign said "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls, and whispered in the sound of silence.

The so called silent majority does not follow the rules of critical reasoning, statistics, logical derivations nor thick serious economical reports. Rather, they follow their instincts, their beliefs, their superstitions, their interests and their inherited values and to think that some specific group speaking in the name of religion, righteousness or God will succeed in turning the silent majority into a submissive mass following a specific ideology is mistaken. Once this majority decides to take part of the scene it will astound and stun even the most skillful of the political analysts for the silent Egyptians have the words of their own prophets written on the subway walls and those prophets are hardly known to any political analyst. 


I found myself smiling after experiencing this trail of thoughts, as I walked slowly towards the Sadat subway station, maybe I'll read what the prophets have written on the subway walls. Maybe!

For those of you who never heard "The sound of silence": http://youtu.be/h-S90Uch2as

What White Means!

After someone called for blogging on May-23-2011 to criticize the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), I found myself obligated to join the initiative. Not that I will add anything new or uncover a hidden treasure of unique ideas that's never been revealed, discussed, refused or agreed upon before. rather, I find it a good opportunity to state my opinion about the current situation and SCAF, in prose as I usually express myself in rhyme. 

The main topic of this article reminds me of a story I once heard, it's relevance to the current events in Egypt and to SCAF maybe deduced through out the lines of this article, read on.

They say that Albert Einstein was once asked by a blind man to explain what does the relativity theory mean, Einstein told the blind guy: "relativity is close to a glass of milk."

"Glass," replied the blind guy, "I know what that is. But what do you mean by milk?"

"Well, milk is a white fluid," said Einstein.

"Now fluid, I know what that is," said the blind guy. "but what is white ? "

" Oh, white is the color of a swan's feathers."

" Feathers, I know feathers, but what is a swan ? "

"A swan's a bird with a crooked neck."

" Neck, I know what a neck is, but what is "crooked" ? "

Einstein seized the blind guy's arm and stretched it. "There, now your arm is straight," said Albert. Then he bent the blind guy's arm at the elbow. "Now it is crooked."

"Oh," said the blind guy. "Now I know what white means."

To many, myself included SCAF is an unknown entity! A group of twenty army generals appointed by Mubarak, representing the different branches of the Egyptian armed forces, whose highest commander used to be Mubarak himself until he was allegedly given an ultimatum to "leave or get prosecuted" during the seventy-two hours prior to his stand down, handing his authorities to SCAF.

This - though celebrated by the masses - has put Egypt in a delicate, perplexing and devastating constitutional situation. Mubarak, according to the constitution can only hand his resignation and therefore his authorities to an elected parliament which represented by it's own head would lead the country through a transition period until a new president is elected. Handing power to SCAF is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The parliament itself was a big fraud, many of its members were instated via a forged election using fake votes, thugs, switching boxes and bribery. 

SCAF, more than anyone involved in the grim Egyptian political scene knew the situation and sought acknowledgement in a legal, constitutional and public manner. But, which constitution? the 1971 constitution in action has already fallen the moment Mubarak stepped down. The only legitimacy SCAF can rely on is the legitimacy imposed by the revolution and none of the rebels of Tahrir would ever acknowledge the appointees of Mubarak to rule. Not to mention that those appointees are men in uniform!

SCAF also knew that a vast majority of Egyptians didn't join the revolution, their silence may reflect sympathy with the revolution's goals, sympathy with Mubarak, Indifference or simply ignorance. Yet, no matter which category this silent majority belonged to, their approval on SCAF being handed power would give SCAF the legitimacy they were seeking. The rebels of Tahrir though righteous are a minority of intelligentsia supported by crowds of a sympathetic mob and some Islamic movements who jumped on board once the revolution was on a roll. SCAF would raise the question: "do those in Tahrir represent the whole nation?", "do we need to derive our legitimacy for being in power from Tahrir alone?", "who of those many groups, coalitions, parties, entities can authorize our existence in power?": none and therefore the answer to all the previously mentioned questions was a loud No. 

The answer to those confusing questions came in the form of some legal consultation provided "probably" by Tareq Al-Beshry (a muslim brothers aficionado) and Yehia Al-Gamal (a man craving for a role) among other  constitutional experts who advised SCAF to conduct a referendum for 9 constitutional amendments concerning articles (75, 76, 77, 88, 93, 139, 148, 179, 189). The Amendments, if approved would legalize SCAF's existence in power, re-instate the fallen 1971 constitution, enforce a form of superficial stability especially amongst the politically illiterate and the previous NDP members who would do anything to restore the country's political scene to what it was prior to January 25. It would also legalize the position of the restricted Islamic groups if they supported the referendum, for apart from legalizing SCAFs position, the referendum drew a clear path for any organized group to take over a considerable portion of the coming parliament thus becoming the new "in-inaugurated" yet actual ruler of Egypt. The Muslim Brothers wouldn't miss this historic chance even if they had to literally betray the demands of Tahrir: after all, this is what politics is all about in their opinion - history says. 

On the other hand the amendments didn't reflect the revolution’s demands. One of the main demands is the formation of a new temporary constitution that would dictate the authorities of a temporary government and a civil presidential council, but who cares? If all the organized powers in Egypt supported by the illiterate masses in the delta and upper Egypt along with SCAF approved of the referendum then to hell with a bunch of of educated bloggers, liberals, leftists and social justice seekers. Electronic media might be imperative in countries like Japan or Sweden where the illiteracy rates are below zero, but Egypt? Guess not.

Furthermore, SCAF does not approve of a presidential council, how do we expect it to? handing power willingly to the likes of Baradei, Nour or Bothaina Kamel? are you insane? SCAF has always stated their firm adherence to applying the law, they did apply it in some occasions and failed in numerous occasions to even get close to concepts of justice or fairness. Any "political" opinion that criticizes SCAF is considered a "crime" punishable by Military Laws. 

Applying the law is a "theme" favorable to many, It saves SCAF from being criticized by the US and EU who praised this "theme" since day one. It is also a theme that would guarantee minimal punishment to major crimes. The judicial system requires documents, proofs and witnesses that may not be available thus making it very hard to establish justice the way the revolution wants.

When we joined the demonstration in Tahrir on Jan 25, we wanted the president to step down, we wanted the regime to fall, we wanted social justice, we wanted freedom and we wanted to restore our long lost dignity. Our demonstrations evolved into a breathtaking, "white" revolution and the world watched us as we elegantly and persistently marched to grab our long denied rights. We made every other revolution in the recorded human history seem barbaric and uncivilized, we reduced what took Gandhi decades of preaching into a mere eighteen days, we discovered who we are and what we can do when united. All in a "white", peaceful and intense rebellious act that would surely make John Lennon, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Saad Zaghloul and every other peace activist proud.

Four months later here is what we've got: we got SCAF instead of Mubarak, we got national security instead of state security, we got military courts instead of civil courts, we got a slow legal process and above all we got this heavy feeling that justice will not be served. 

Now I know what "white" means!