A dragged, stripped, blamed victim in Egypt
Diana Moukalled/Al Arabiya
Tuesday, 16 June 2015
“They dragged me, stripped me, beat me up and stepped on me as if I were an insect,” Egyptian activist Hend Nafea said while in hospital, describing what happened to her in 2011 when she took part in protests against military rule. Her testimony was not easy. In Egypt, it is common to blame women for being attacked, particularly when expressing their right to protest. A few weeks ago, amid the life sentences and executions being issued by the Egyptian judiciary, Nafea was sentenced to life in prison over accusations of sabotage and terrorism. It went largely unnoticed that she turned from victim to defendant, something many others have experienced. Shaima al-Sabbagh, who was killed in front of cameras while protesting, was blamed for being killed, rather than the security forces that shot her dead.
Four years after her ordeal, Nafea – who has left Egypt – appeared in “The Trials of Spring,” a six-part series presented by the New York Times about women who played important roles in their countries during the Arab Spring. Her appearance stirred media-led accusations of treason. In the movie, Nafea recalls what happened to her and how family ties were broken. She also talks of her bitterness about being regarded as an offender rather than a victim. She describes how she followed up on the details of her trial online, and how her lawyer said he was prevented from attending trial sessions. In Egypt, it is common to blame women for being attacked, particularly when expressing their right to protest. There is currently a media uproar in Egypt that is devoid of facts. For example, it is easy to say that the Human Right Watch (HRW) report on increasing suppression and violations is politicized, and that the El-Nadim Center report documenting killings and torture harms state prestige. However, this uproar cannot conceal facts. Nafea’s story, which could not be heard in Egypt, will be heard by the rest of the world thanks to “The Trials of Spring.”
Time to unite in rejecting terrorist propaganda—and the first step is to stop calling their gang an Islamic State
Rehman Chishti/Asharq Al Awsat
Tuesday, 16 Jun, 2015
The perils of terror are no longer confined to far-flung places across the globe; they are a threat to us here in the UK and the Western world. We have witnessed attacks in the streets of Europe and large-scale destruction in the Middle East—a region of vital importance to our own interests and security. While no agreement stands between states on what constitutes terrorism, there is a consensus that the group which calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a terror organization. Their barbaric practices of brutal beheadings, forced marriages, and mass executions show they are nothing more than a terrorist organization that engages in terrorist acts. Yet the problems we face with ISIS do not end by defining them as terrorists, for what you call an enemy is an important part of defeating them.
You may ask—what’s important about a name? But names can ennoble and bestow legitimacy where none should be given. I believe that for too long, since their rapid gains across northern and western Iraq and eastern Syria, we have allowed the interchangeable titles of “Islamic State,” “ISIL,” and “ISIS” to remain in our common lexicon. Daily in our newspapers and on our television screens we see and read about the grim reality of life for the 6 million people forced to live under the terror of the so-called “Islamic state.” Their atrocities in Iraq and Syria clearly demonstrate they are not Islamic nor are they a state. For a state to exist it must have legal and international recognition as well as a defined sovereign territory. This organization does not have a permanent population, a defined territory, or the institutions of state. It does not recognize international law, norms or conventions or even the treaties of the United Nations. Nor has any other state in the world recognized it as a state.
This group is distorting a peaceful religion for its own violent and extremist ends and calling this evil organization “ISIS” only gives it legitimacy by linking it to Islam. This not only misleads people into thinking this issue is religious—when in fact it is criminal and politically motivated—but also attracts those, who through ignorance and misunderstanding, may seek to join ISIS because of its name and association. As Professor James Bruning from Ohio University says: “The impact of names comes from how people expect to see you,” and to stop driving recruits into their grim clutches we must deprive ISIS of its association with Islam. Traveling the country, visiting different communities and mosques, I have found that the question of their name often comes up. People want the media and our leaders to call this evil organization what it really is, rather than allowing it to be linked with religion.
It is a point which was welcomed by the UK’s Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond when I raised it with him in Parliament. He suggested that the BBC and other media outlets should give them a different name. It is time that we adopt a clear, unambiguous title that fully reflects the nature of these terrorists. So what could be an alternative name for such a brutal group? Last year France took up the name widely adopted in the Middle East—“Da’esh”—which is an Arabic acronym for the group’s name, “Al-Dawla Al-Islamiyia fil Iraq wa’al Sham.” It also holds negative connotations, sounding similar to the word “Daes,” meaning “one who crushes something underfoot,” and “Dahes,” referring to “one who sows discord.”
Whilst others have started referring to this evil gang as “Da’ish,” this has been rejected by Turkey. They refer to them as “Da’esh” because, as the ambassador of Turkey has explained to me, the “I” links it to Islam. Whilst renaming them Da’esh would be a step forward, as it has international support, others have made different suggestions. A group of prominent British Muslim groups wrote to Prime Minister David Cameron in September proposing the use of “Un-Islamic State” to help tackle radicalization in the UK. I believe that we should also consider an idea by Prince Turki Al-Faisal, chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, and the former ambassador to the United States and the United Kingdom. At a lecture I hosted in Parliament, Prince Turki argued that we should rename ISIS as “Faesh,” meaning “obscene” in Arabic. As he has said: “When we refer to someone using this word it means they commit obscenities, whether through words or deeds.” Certainly their actions suggest this would be a more appropriate title for an organization that has been responsible for such acts as enslaving women and attacking innocent people.Recent events show that there is no clear end in sight to the fight with this terrorist group. But the battle for ideas must be fought as well as the ground war. We cannot let them gain the legitimacy they seek by calling them the Islamic State. It is time to adopt a different name, and Faesh seems a sensible suggestion to me.
