the news in arabic

In Syria, official and unofficial censorship practices take place out of the public sphere and largely remain an enigma to both Syrians and other observers. In essence, no one knows exactly what constitutes officially unacceptable speech because there is no official policy that lays down these dictates. It’s a situation of trial and error; and most Syrian writers and commentators take care to stay within the bounds of state-sanctioned speech, both when expressing opinions in local  and foreign-run media outlets.

The recent arrest of Syrian religious figure Shaykh Abdul Rahman Kuki by the Syrian security apparatus after his appearance on the al-Jazeera debate-style program al-Itijah al-Muakkis (The Opposite Direction) could possibly give us insight into what constitutes acceptable speech in the eyes of the Syrian government.

What makes Kuki’s case unique is precisely the availability of his “incriminating speech,” so to speak. Since Kuki participated in a televised debate on al-Jazeera — an outlet that does not bend to state demands — I was able to watch and dissect the footage that led to his subsequent arrest. Normally, the speech in question somehow dissapears from the record or was never available in the first place.

It should also be noted that Kuki is no stranger to the Arab media apparatus and its workings. He has appeared at least once on a debate show on the state-run Syria TV called “The Red Line” (aka the line you do not cross)  where he represents an “Islamic” perspective. From this, we can assume that Kuki was familiar self and direct censorship practices, so what happened this time?

THE DEBATE

The topic of the debate: The Niqab. (The niqab is the veil that covers the entire face except for the eyes.) More specifically, the debate focused on the announcement of Cairo’s al-Azhar Shakyh Muhammad Tantawi of the institution’s plans to ban the niqab on al-Azhar property. Shaykh Kuki is pro-niqab and against the purported plans of al-Azhar, which is a revered Islamic institution.

Below, I want to examine the statements which could have been deemed problematic by the Syrian regime.

Per the nature of the show, Kuki starts off on an inflammatory note and claims that the “so-called” Shaykh of al-Azhar is implementing an American-Zionist plan and thus he is “a part of the Zionist-Crusader campaign against Islam.”

تحية إلى صاحبات الرفعة والفخامة إلى المسلمات المنقبات ثم المتحجبات المتجلببات اللواتي يرفضن الانسياق وراء الطرح الصهيو أميركي الذي جاء على لسان ما يسمى بشيخ الأزهر ويرفضن أن يتنازلن عن دينهن وشرفهن وعقيدتهن ويعلمن أن ما يثار ضدهن إنما هو جزء.. حملة شيخ الأزهر جزء من الحملة الصهيو صليبية على الإسلام.

Shaykh Kuki further attacks the head Azhari Shaykh in a very confrontational way and then asks: “What is the field of [the Shaykh's] battle?  . . . The field of his battle is Islam and his first enemy is the hijab, chastity, and the niqab. Has the Shakyh launched a battle or any statements against the Jews? Never. Against corruption? Never. Against prostitution and drunkery? Against depravity? Against tight jeans?”

شيخ الأزهر يقوم بحملة يشارك بحملة صليبية ضد الإسلام, الآن بالله عليك شيخ الأزهر ما هي ساحة معركته؟ ما هو فضاء عمله؟ ساحة معركته وحربه الإسلام، عدوه الأول الحجاب والعفة والنقاب. هل قام شيخ الأزهر بحرب وتصريحات ضد اليهود؟ أبدا، هل قام ضد الفساد؟ أبدا، ضد بيوت الدعارة والخنى؟ ضد التهتك؟ ضد بناطيل الجينز الضيقة؟

I’m guessing the Syrian government would not have a problem per se with a hypothetical War on Tight Jeans, but already Shaykh Kuki has entered dangerous territory by insulting a high-level religious figure with highly-charged language. At this point, Kuki is reading these statements from a sheet of paper — these are his planned talking points. Yet can we assume from this that he believed these statements were harmless and would not lead to any repercussions when he returned home? Or can we assume that he felt so passionately about the issue that he just didn’t care what the Syrian government would think?

After this, the debate intensifies and the central reason behind Kuki’s arrest becomes manifest.

NOW I UNDERSTAND

I believe the last three minutes holds the answer to my intial question of what the Syrian government would define as “acceptable speech,” yet questions still remain because the unacceptable words are spoken by the Egyptian guest while Kuki is eagerly trying to re-route the conversation.

Either way, this is about as inflammatory as it gets on Arab television and the Egyptian guest is a total moron for instigating Kuki in this way, knowing full well that these types of comments could lead to his arrest.

Other guest: First is the niqab and not the liberation of the Golan Heights, my Brother Kuki? My religious brother Kuki?
Kuki: Oh, very nice (sarcastic), the niqab is the way to liberate the Golan.
Other Guest: Why don’t you tell President Bashar al-Assad to impose the niqab on Syrian women in order to liberate the Golan, my Brother?
Moderator: Just one second . . . [tries to re-direct debate]
Other guest: Why, why don’t you tell your President — you are the head of a mosque — tell the First Lady in Syria to wear niqab so you all can get back the Golan?
Moderator: My Brother, this is not our subject.
Other guest: Yes, it is our subject.
Kuki: Our issue is not personal — the issue is not personal.
Other Guest: Why? You’re not a Muslim, my brother? Not a Muslim? Not the leader of a mosque? It’s your duty in your first sermon to demand that President Bashar al-Assad put the niqab on his wife. You must demand that he impose the niqab on all the Syrian Muslim women.
Moderator: Ok, this is not our subject.
Kuki: We’re not talking about imposing the niqab.

عبد الرحيم علي: الأولى النقاب ولا تحرير الجولان يا أخ كوكي؟ يا أخ كوكي دينيا دينيا.
عبد الرحمن كوكي: جميل جدا، النقاب هو طريق تحرير الجولان.
فيصل القاسم: أو تحرر الجولان أو تطعم الشعب المصري.
عبد الرحيم علي: ليه ما تقولش للرئيس بشار الأسد أن يفرض النقاب على النساء حتى تتحرر الجولان يا أخي!
فيصل القاسم: بس دقيقة، أو يطعم الشعب المصري مثلا، إطعام الشعب المصري.
عبد الرحيم علي: لماذا، لماذا لا تقول لرئيسك -وأنت خطيب مسجد- وتقول للسيدة الأولى في سوريا أن تنتقب حتى تستطيعوا استرجاع الجولان..
فيصل القاسم (مقاطعا): يا أخي مش موضوعنا هذا. يا سيدي.
عبد الرحيم علي: هذا هو موضوعنا.
عبد الرحمن كوكي: نحن مو قضيتنا شخصية، القضية مو قضيتنا شخصية.
عبد الرحيم علي: ليه؟ مش مسلم يا أخي، مش مسلم؟ مش خطيب إمام مسجد؟ عليك في أول الخطبة أن تطالب الرئيس بشار الأسد بأن تنتقب زوجته وأن تطالبه بأن يفرض النقاب على المسلمات في سوريا..
فيصل القاسم: طيب يا أخي مش هذا موضوعنا، دقيقة يا سيدي
عبد الرحمن كوكي: نحن لا نتكلم عن فرض النقاب..

I hardly know where to begin. I can just imagine the Syrian officials banging their heads against the wall. What puzzles me is, if this is the conversation that led to Kuki’s arrest, can we now assume that the Syrian government will arrest individuals who are merely in the presence of inflammatory speech? I suppose when the speech is this inflammatory, Yes. I’ll break it down:

1. Direct insult to an Arab leader, in this case, the Syrian President. Yet it was not only a direct insult to Assad, but the comments also insinuated that Kuki does not believe that Bashar al-Assad is “Muslim enough.” The Egyptian clearly sought to portray Kuki as a crazed fundamentalist who secretly harbors some type of resentment toward his secular government for not imposing the niqab. The equivalent playground taunt would be, “What? If you’re so Muslim, then why don’t you go preach all this Islam to your secular president and leave us Egyptians alone, you hypocrite! Your government is the most ungodly of them all!”
2. The Golan Heights aka the Syrian Achille’s Heel. The Egyptian nonsensically inserts the Golan Heights into the argument and insinuates that Kuki believes that if his government were more righteously Muslim then they would be able to reclaim the Golan Heights. Then, the Egyptian somehow implies that Kuki is so jaded with his Islamic jargon that he has lost sight of the real battle (the one against Israel) and is now entirely consumed with the niqab. Yet the real reason why the Egyptian brought up the Golan was as a personal jab; he was taunting Kuki and the Syrian government by implying that they are too weak to ever retrieve the Golan.

DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

If Kuki did not even utter the unacceptable speech, why was he arrested? To put it simply, after that kind of affront to Syrian authority the Syrian government just had to retaliate against someone. And since it couldn’t be the Egyptian guy, it had to be Kuki. Al-Itijah al-Muakkis is one of the most widely watched shows in the Arab world. Thousands of Syrians just heard the unspeakable get spoken and if the government did not proceed with retribution against Kuki, then perhaps other Syrian talking heads who make the rounds on Arab satellite stations would not be as strict in policing their language.

Kuki’s arrest is an affirmation of the following message to Syrians: The Syrian censorship apparatus transcends borders and your very nature as a Syrian ensures that your language will be policed internationally and your very person is bound to the official views of the state.