Egypt cleric retracts 'nursing' edict
munaeem | 22 May, 2007 13:29
A professor at Egypt's Islamic Al Azhar university Monday retracted a controversial religious edict which states that a woman can only be left alone with a strange man if she breastfeeds him.
Ezzat Attia, president of the university's Hadith department which studies traditions based on the Prophet Mohammed's words and deeds, withdrew his fatwa and apologized for any inconvenience he caused, in a statement distributed by Al Azhar, Sunni Islam's main seat of learning.
Attia's edict, which sparked an uproar in the media, stated that a woman can only be alone with a man to whom she is not related - such as an office colleague - if she nurses him "directly from her breast" at least five times.
In his retraction, Attia said the fatwa had been a result of his personal analysis of Islamic texts and was in fact "a bad interpretation of a particular case" during the time of Prophet Mohammed.
According to Mabruk Attia, a professor of theology at Al Azhar, the Prophet had advised a woman to nurse her adult adopted son, to become his wet nurse, following an Islamic ban on adoption.
The woman gave the man her milk from a bowl, and not directly from her breast, Mabruk Attia said.
The fatwa sparked a furore in Egyptian and Arab religious circles and in the press.
"If the country's top cleric himself had made the same statements, he would not be considered respectable," Malika Yussef, a professor of theology at Al Azhar told the weekly Al Karama paper. She said even debating the issue was "insane."
"When you walk into a government building, you should not be shocked to find a 50-year-old civil servant suckling his colleague," the independent daily Al Dustur said ironically after the fatwa was issued.
Source : www,metimes.com
Was Osama Right?
munaeem | 16 May, 2007 11:56
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.
BY BERNARD LEWIS
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:01 a.m.
During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?" A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.
These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune. Their retention of the vast, largely Muslim colonial empire accumulated by the czars in Asia passed unnoticed, as did their propaganda and sometimes action against Muslim beliefs and institutions. Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and other Muslim countries to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Washington's handling of the Tehran hostage crisis assured the Soviets that they had nothing to fear from the U.S. They already knew that they need not worry about the Arab and other Muslim governments. The Soviets already ruled--or misruled--half a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, without arousing any opposition or criticism. Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted. After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was persuaded to pass a resolution "strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan." The words "condemn" and "aggression" were not used, and the source of the "intervention" was not named. Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets.
One might have expected that the recently established Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and manipulation, the organization finally held a meeting in Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The representative of the PLO, a full member of this organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S.
The Muslim willingness to submit to Soviet authority, though widespread, was not unanimous. The Afghan people, who had successfully defied the British Empire in its prime, found a way to resist the Soviet invaders. An organization known as the Taliban (literally, "the students") began to organize resistance and even guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupiers and their puppets. For this, they were able to attract some support from the Muslim world--some grants of money, and growing numbers of volunteers to fight in the Holy War against the infidel conqueror. Notable among these was a group led by a Saudi of Yemeni origin called Osama bin Laden.
To accomplish their purpose, they did not disdain to turn to the U.S. for help, which they got. In the Muslim perception there has been, since the time of the Prophet, an ongoing struggle between the two world religions, Christendom and Islam, for the privilege and opportunity to bring salvation to the rest of humankind, removing whatever obstacles there might be in their path. For a long time, the main enemy was seen, with some plausibility, as being the West, and some Muslims were, naturally enough, willing to accept what help they could get against that enemy. This explains the widespread support in the Arab countries and in some other places first for the Third Reich and, after its collapse, for the Soviet Union. These were the main enemies of the West, and therefore natural allies.
Now the situation had changed. The more immediate, more dangerous enemy was the Soviet Union, already ruling a number of Muslim countries, and daily increasing its influence and presence in others. It was therefore natural to seek and accept American help. As Osama bin Laden explained, in this final phase of the millennial struggle, the world of the unbelievers was divided between two superpowers. The first task was to deal with the more deadly and more dangerous of the two, the Soviet Union. After that, dealing with the pampered and degenerate Americans would be easy.
We in the Western world see the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western, more specifically an American, victory in the Cold War. For Osama bin Laden and his followers, it was a Muslim victory in a jihad, and, given the circumstances, this perception does not lack plausibility.
From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places. Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.
More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Assad can best serve his country by ending the witch-hunt
munaeem | 15 May, 2007 17:29
Editorial
Syria's government is like those of many Arab countries in being uncertain over how to take the next step at a time when the world is changing more quickly and more profoundly than ever before. This week's events seem to remove any doubt that Damascus is bent on retrenchment, that absent a foolproof plan to keep political liberalization from getting out of control, it would rather stay where it is or even retreat into the past. This would be unfortunate, especially since the only way to pursue such a strategy would entail the imposition of heavy socioeconomic costs on the Syrian public - and in any event the effort itself would almost certainly be in vain.
Thursday's sentencing of dissident Kamal Labwani to life in prison, commuted to 12 years, was not the act of a system infused with confidence in its own future. Coming as it did on the same day that Syrian legislators nominated President Bashar Assad for a second seven-year term, the sentence actually undermined his consistent efforts to portray his leadership as popular and stable. The facts of the matter are that Assad has a new Parliament controlled by his Baath Party and on May 27 a referendum will officially grant him a new mandate to remain in office. This should make him and the system over which he presides more than magnanimous enough to tolerate criticism from what is still a tiny and disorganized opposition.
Apart from the damage inflicted on Syria's image, cracking down on dissent also distracts the government's attention from far more pressing matters, including the possible resumption of talks with Israel over the hoped-for return of the Golan Heights seized by the Jewish state in 1967. Pursuing critics at home also undermines the efforts of international players working to end Syria's continuing isolation from much of the West - and diverts resources from efforts to combat the effects of that lonely position.
These and other issues are important to all Syrians, but they also matter to the Lebanese. Beirut and Damascus are not on good terms right now, but geography and history dictate that this stage will pass. Come what may, a weak Syria would carry all sorts of potential troubles for Lebanon, so this country has a vested interest in seeing its neighbor regain the optimism and vigor that followed Assad's initial rise to power in 2000. His youth and personal experience were touted then as evidence that a new generation had come to the fore and that with it would come a new approach to the full gamut of civil and human rights. The initial results of his softer line on dissent frightened many representatives of the establishment, though, and they successfully engineered a return to the Baath's traditional stance toward its opponents.
A medical doctor and a family man, Labwani is hardly a bomb-throwing radical. His associates say he plans to appeal, and with luck the verdict will be overturned. If it is not, Assad would do himself a huge favor by pardoning Labwani and ending a witch-hunt that only serves to discredit the president, his party and his country. Far from impairing Syrian national security, such a move would enhance it by freeing the government to get ready for the next stage of development.
The full weight of globalization has yet to make itself felt in Syria, but it inevitably will. This gives Assad and his colleagues two choices: They can try to implement reforms that allow it to shape the outcome of this process, or they can batten down the hatches and watch their edifice decay until it is swept aside by forces far beyond the ability of any government to defeat.
Tony Blair: A Wronged Arab Ally
munaeem | 15 May, 2007 17:14
by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
It is common knowledge among us that outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair was an evil when it came to the region's affairs and waged wars on its people, from the invasion of Iraq to Palestine, Sudan, terrorism, and other significant events. The truth is that the man played a positive, yet silent, role in minimizing the damage and containing crises.
His opponents portrayed him as George Bush's loyal lap dog, while the man played an exceptional role in reducing the US tension following the 11 September attacks. Blair also succeeded in creating another wing with the US President that counterbalances the Pentagon group, which believed that the United States had the right to have an international presence using force and political influence. I am aware that Blair flew several times to Washington in order to persuade the White House of the dangers of expanding the war on terrorism and the importance of creating an alliance with the Islamic countries instead of Washington fighting Al-Qaeda alone. Blair was also more than once willing to rejuvenate the Palestinian question, which was marginalized by the issues of terrorism and Iraq. Some Arab countries resorted to Blair in times of serious crises in order to persuade the US Administration to modify or mitigate the acute stands of Bush's government.
Blair was certainly loyal to his friend Bush -- a friendship necessitated by work requirements -- but he was Bush's best adviser on Arab affairs. I am aware that nobody can understand Blair's history because Blair is unable to promote himself, and he was always keen not to publicly criticize Bush's administration, regardless of the extent of disagreement between the two.
On another note, we should realize that the relationship between London and Washington is essential and strategic, and any prime minister would have done the same -- be he a member of the Labor, Conservative, or Liberal Democratic parties. This was the case with John Major and the more so with Margaret Thatcher.
One of Blair's attributes is that he is not an elusive politician like French President Jacques Chirac, for he does not evade his responsibilities. Blair admitted to the mistakes in Iraq, yet he insisted that the Iraq battle was essential and inevitable. The battle, he believes, was spoiled by the fatal mistakes of the postwar administration. He is well aware that victory can be claimed by many unlike defeat, as is the case in Iraq.
Many have judged Blair based on the Iraqi issue, but forgot, if not failed to notice, that he was the British prime minister who reached an understanding with everybody in the region the most. Unlike Washington, he did not take any extreme stands toward any Arab country. He sought to communicate with Syria at a time when Washington had a definite wish to boycott it; however, Damascus, as usual, rejected his efforts. He also tried to ease the tension with the Iranians, but Tehran was faster by announcing the [uranium] enrichment, denying the inspectors access [to nuclear plants], and antagonizing the international community.
Blair may be the product of a traditional relationship between Washington and London, but he was a leader who ruled for ten difficult years, during which he had historic stands.
EGYPT: Labour Unrest Spreads
munaeem | 14 May, 2007 16:27
Workers in Cairo’s vital public transport sector threatened to go on strike earlier this month if the state did not meet their list of demands. The incident was only the latest in a spate of strikes and protests in recent months that local commentators attribute to the steadily rising cost of living.
"These workers’ actions are a result of the crushing economic situation," Magdi Hussein, secretary-general of the Labour Party, officially frozen by the government since 2000, told IPS. "But with the current political upheaval in Egypt, workers have begun breaking down the wall of fear by wielding the weapons of the strike and the sit-in."
Egypt has seen an unprecedented number of organised labour actions in the last six months. Since the beginning of this year, more than 50 strikes and labour protests have been called, with 11 in the last week of April alone.
Labour actions have been organised in several of Egypt’s most important industries, in both the public and private sectors. In addition to pubic transport, these have included the textiles, construction and industrial manufacturing sectors.
The biggest labour action was in December, when some 25,000 workers participated in a strike at the state-owned Egypt Company for Spinning and Weaving in the Nile Delta city of Mahalla. After three days of striking, which reportedly cost the company some 12 million dollars, workers’ demands for promised bonuses were finally met.
Notably, the recent labour unrest has been marked by the absence of official union representation, with most actions being independently organised by workers themselves. The reason for this, say labour organisers and commentators, is that the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF) -- the only legal union representation available -- has largely failed to protect workers’ rights.
Spokesmen for the government, meanwhile, have suggested that clandestine communist groups or unlicensed workers’ associations have had a hand in organising the recent wave of strikes. Late last month, authorities shut down the Cairo-based Centre for Trade Union & Worker’s Services, an independent organisation devoted to labour rights issues, triggering a storm of condemnation from human and civil rights groups.
But far from being the result of a political conspiracy, most informed observers say the current labour unrest lacks any political dimension. They attribute the phenomenon to the rising cost of living, noting that inflation has continued to rise steadily ever since a major currency devaluation in 2003.
Source : IPS
EGYPT: A Marriage Becomes Everyone's Business
munaeem | 10 May, 2007 21:31
The marriage last week of Gamal Mubarak, son of President Hosni Mubarak and influential member of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), has led to renewed speculation about the presidential scion’s political ambitions.
While the younger Mubarak continues to deny any intention to run for president, many political observers took the wedding as a sign that "inheritance" of the highest office is imminent.
On May 4, 44-year-old Gamal was married to Khadiga al-Gamal, 24, daughter of wealthy Egyptian construction magnate Mohamed al-Gamal. The couple had been engaged since early last year.
The wedding into a business family is seen as significant because Gamal spearheads the business policy unit of government, which in turn has become politically powerful.
Ever since he was appointed head of the NDP’s influential Policies Committee in 2002, speculation about Gamal’s political trajectory has mounted.
According to some local commentators, the Policies Committee -- like its unelected chief -- enjoys excessive influence over party policy and the legislative process.
The influence of Gamal and his circle of pro-business associates extends into the cabinet as well.
Critics note that, in the five years since his political debut, the younger Mubarak has, with the help of friendly state media, achieved an unrivalled public profile.
Such conjecture, however, has been accompanied by a degree of uncertainty as to the role of Egypt’s powerful armed forces in any possible succession scenario. According to some analysts, the country’s discreet but powerful military institutions would oppose the appointment of Gamal to the presidency.
"The military wouldn’t let Gamal take the presidency because he has nothing to offer other than the fact that he’s the president’s son," said Kandil. "Those who back Gamal for president are those powerful members of the business community who stand to benefit from his policies."
The Baghdad Conundrum
munaeem | 20 April, 2007 01:57
A series of bombs ripped through Baghdad, killing at least 171 people and calling into question the effectiveness of the White House plan to secure the capital (NYT). Bush has stressed that the so-called surge, which calls for an extra twenty-one thousand troops to be deployed in Baghdad and Anbar province, is only partially underway. And an Associated Press tally since the surge began two months ago found Iraqi civilian deaths dropped by nearly half in Baghdad compared to the two previous months. But civilian deaths are up outside the capital, in cities like Baquba (NYT) and Haswah (WSJ).
Back in Washington, there was no apparent softening of views on the war in Iraq when President Bush and Democratic congressional leaders sat down to discuss an emergency funding bill. Instead, said participants in the meeting, there appeared to be an acknowledgement that Congress will present Bush soon with a bill tying a troop timeline to funding, and he will veto it (AP). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Bush “must search his soul, his conscience” to recognize that a bill calling for a troop drawdown next year is right for the country. The talks took place on an especially bloody day in Iraq, with multiple bombings killing nearly two hundred people (Reuters). The White House wants to give time for Bush’s surge strategy, which aims at pacifying the capital to permit the space for political progress among Iraqi factions, to work.
Bush has tried to frame the debate in Washington as a troop support issue, saying repeatedly he will not accept any measure that “hamstrings our troops” and that “we should not legislate defeat in this vital war.” Democrats stress their bill reflects the mandate (PollingReport.com) of a majority of Americans, who have shown in public opinion polls they would rather see troop numbers drawn down in Iraq than increased, as Bush called for under a plan initiated earlier this year.
The standoff highlights one of the strongest attempts in years by Congress to assert its war powers, an issue examined in this new Backgrounder. Both sides acknowledge Congress holds the purse strings and that the Democratic majority doesn’t have the votes to override a presidential veto. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) indicated on Sunday that in the event of a veto, Congress could replace language (WashPost) calling for an imminent withdrawal with provisions stating political benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet or face a drawdown in military and economic support. And there are signs the Democrats may be satisfied they have scored enough (CSMonitor) political points to pass modified legislation that Bush would accept.
If the Democrats agree to fund the surge, at least for the short term, they are likely to resume pressure for a more considered withdrawal plan, especially as the 2008 presidential election campaign heats up. CFR Senior Fellow Steven Simon, author of a Council Special Report that calls for disengagement from Iraq, still believes the Democrats’ timetables are too rushed. Instead, he writes in a recent op-ed in the Boston Globe, there is need for a “timetable that meshes with politics at home and military and diplomatic realities in the Middle East.” He says it is possible to achieve a complete withdrawal of combat forces by early 2009.
Waleed Shaalan, Slain Muslim at Virginia Tech, Helped Save A Life
munaeem | 19 April, 2007 21:18
via Ali Eteraz
The list of good people who were killed in this horrifying tragedy keeps growing. There was Professor Librescu (a holocaust survivor) who held the door shut so his students could get away; and a PhD candidate in the Computer Engineering department who helped save three people and held a door closed (does anyone have his name); and now I received an email about Waleed Shaalan, the Egyptian PhD candidate.
Assalamu alaikum everyone,
I would like to share with you some additional information that I received from a colleague in the CEE Dept. This colleague of mine is the supervisor of a graduate student who was with Waleed in the class and survived the massacre. I should mention that the description is graphical so I apologize in advance.
The student mentions that Waleed saved his life and wants to convey this to Waleed’s family. Apparently, the murderer came into Norris 206 and shot Dr. Loganathan and a number of students injuring Waleed. Waleed was sitting in the front row where he always sat. Everyone jumped to the floor after hearing the gun shots including the person narrating the story. The murderer then left Norris 206 to go to another classroom. The student that narrates the story was not shot but pretended to be dead and lay on the ground beside Waleed who at that time was only injured. The muderer then re-entered the classroom and was checking for alive victims. He had approached the person narrating the story who mentions that his heart was pounding out of fear. Waleed at that instant made a movement to distract the murderer’s attention and was shot for the second time. At that time Waleed died and the murderer left the narrator to search for other victims. Ina Lillahi wa ina Ilayhi rajeoon. We ask Allah to forgive Waleed all his sins and grant him paradise.
Like everyone else killed in this horrible tragedy, Waleed was a good man, and our prayers should be with everyone of the victims, their families, and friends, and ourselves as well.
Egypt's security still at threat from Israeli spying
munaeem | 19 April, 2007 19:50
The arrest of an Egyptian engineer - who worked at a local nuclear power plant - for spying for Israel was the most serious in a series of espionage cases in the country.
The recent case also clearly revealed that Israel continued to violate Egypt's national security, harming its interests by recruiting Egyptians and foreigners to spy on the Arab country.
Despite the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, and Israel's claim that it desired peace and normal relations, the Jewish state continued to try to penetrate Egypt's intricate secrets.
Take Me to Your (Middle East) Leader
munaeem | 12 April, 2007 05:31
by Barry Rubin
The Middle East. The final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship, International Affairs. Its mission: To explore strange, new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no diplomat/journalist/politician has gone before.
Let's say you are captain of a starship. You arrive on a newly discovered planet to deal with the local aliens who are "strange" and "new" to you. It makes sense to start by saying, "We come in peace. Take me to your leader!"
This should not, however, be how one deals with the Middle East. After all, it has governments, movements, and ideologies with a long track record. By this point, we should understand something about them.
Lately, it has become commonplace to claim the Bush administration didn't try hard enough to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict or get along with Syria or Iran. This is nonsense. It was the situation and the countries themselves that created this problem. We learned all this when Bill Clinton was president. And if he was still in the White House--whatever one can say about Iraq--these other three problems would be just as big and unsolvable.
Two current crises underline that reality. The first is Iran's kidnapping of British military personnel. The Iranians played it perfectly. They grabbed them in Iraqi waters, got a couple of sailors to "confess" Iran was right, and put a hijab on the sole woman sailor. The world was shown to be 100 percent impotent. The British government, European Union (of whom the sailors are citizens, too), and UN (on whose behalf the sailors' mission of searching ships was conducted) were incapable of any strong response.
Lesson to the Muslim world: Iran stands up to the West; the West fears Iran. Ensuring nobody in Iran takes seriously pressures against its nuclear program? Convincing. Teaching that a hard-line cows the West into submission? Effective. Showing that aggression and terrorism pays? Superlative.
That was only Act One. In Act Two, the Iranians released the sailors as a "gift" to Britain. Lesson? Iran is the world's most powerful country; Iran is generous. Some Western observers argued this proves it isn't necessary to take a strong stance because they let hostages go when confronted with... appeasement. Score: Double bonus points for Tehran.
Before leaving this subject, though, let me share with you a minor mess-up by Iran's propaganda machine. According to Tehran's official news agency, the Iranian Jewish community issued a Passover statement supporting the radical Islamist regime:
"In obedience to the instructions of Jesus... Iranian Jews voice their readiness to defend all national interests... and to observe the guidelines set by Supreme Leader for the sake of strengthening national unity and solidarity in the fight against present-day pharaohs." Oops! Memo to Tehran: Need more work on phony messages from Jews.
Now on to our other issue, the high-level congressional delegation visit to Syria. Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi went to Damascus. Pelosi began with a Star Trek sort of message: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."
Pelosi should have known how this validates the Syrians' big justification for being extremists and ignoring demands to change their policy: Everyone must come to us to get peace in the region. Quick, give us Lebanon, the Golan Heights, a free pass to commit terrorism, and drop the investigation about our murdering the former prime minister of Lebanon because we hold all the cards. She played right into their hands and doesn't even understand it.
Something else is missing here, which should be obvious: some toughness. "We come in friendship, etc., but there's a real cost for continuing to trample on U.S. interests." Pelosi's idea of the big stick is to express, "Our concern about fighters crossing the Iraq-Syria border to the detriment of the Iraqi people and our soldiers."
"To the detriment" means blowing up Iraqi civilians and American citizens through terrorist acts. Why can't she say so? This is the problem with this kind of dialogue. The American or Western side must be nice, polite, complementary, while the radicals can do or say whatever they want. And this is precisely why the Syrians and Iranians want such a talking process.
To make matters worse, Pelosi let the Syrians cheat her without protest. She was given a message by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert saying Israel wants Syria to stop backing terrorism before there can be peace talks. The Syrians ignored that point.
Nevertheless, Pelosi uncritically stated: "We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from" Syria's president that he was ready to negotiate with Israel. Sure, nowadays Syria wants to talk as it daily encourages acts of terrorism and arms Hamas and Hizballah. A nice long process lasting years, without ever achieving any result, and guaranteeing no one will take a tough stance toward Syria.
The visit's most shameful line was Pelosi saying, "The road to solving Lebanon's problems passes through Damascus." In other words, Lebanon can only be fixed if Syria agrees. Oh, sorry, just sold out Lebanon's independence from Syrian rule and betrayed the aspirations of most Lebanese.
As the Lebanese analyst Tony Badran puts it: "This is 'hard-headed realism?' Eating dates, checking out carpets, and taking the official tourist tour with a regime that's killing American soldiers, is a sponsor of every kind of terrorist, stands accused of multiple political assassinations in Lebanon, and is seen as acting like an outlaw by almost every country on earth except Iran?"
As Mr. Spock would say, "Quite illogical, captain."
Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His co-authored book, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, (Oxford University Press) is now available in paperback and in Hebrew. His latest book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, was published by Wiley in November 2005. Prof. Rubin's columns can be read online at: http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.
On Religious Parties.
munaeem | 11 April, 2007 09:15
There is more than one logical and sound reason that would encourage the Egyptian nation to hope that the long-awaited constitutional amendments will successfully prohibit the establishment of political parties based solely on religious platforms.
Firstly, there is a strong belief among many that the glorification and sanctification of the Islamic fiqh [jurisprudence] is a baseless act. These critics often note that the Islamic fiqh is merely a man made interpretation of holy texts. It might be useful to refer here to the most fixed and wide-spread definition of the Islamic fiqh that says that, "Fiqh is the science concerned with the deduction of practical rules out of their juristic references." It is easy to see that any process of deduction is a human, not a divine, action since it inevitability requires the use of language and logic.
As further proof of the temporal nature of fiqh, it is known that the legacy of the great sunnÄ« jurists, AbÅ« HanÄ«fah, MÄlik, al-ShÄficÄ«, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, was created in less than 200 years. In addition to that fact, the second and third juristswere contemporaneous and, importantly, still differed in their opinions regarding fiqh. How could MÄlik publish a jurisprudential madhhab [school or legal system] different from that of AbÅ« HanÄ«fah unless the latter's work was nothing but a human production? One more significant evidence that we are discussing a merely human work from beginning to end is the fact that the third sunnÄ« jurist produced two different legal systems, one for Iraq and another for Egypt.
Consequently, the principles considered, by some, to be the Islamic tenets for comprehensive systems of government are nothing but ijtihÄd. Such interpretations have come to be called the Sultanic commandments. Experts know that temporal rulers, whether during the Umayyad or the Abbasid eras, heavily influenced most of what was written about the Sultanic commandments. These rulers acted this way in order to guarantee that whatever was written about the laws would concur with their desires and understanding concerning the governance of their respective communities.
I would like to emphasize that similar processes took place in other places. The relationship between the opinions and writings of the British political thinker Hobbes and the British throne is a case in point. It has been argued that Hobbes specifically wrote opinions that echoed the desires of the British crown.
Therefore, the existence of political parties formed on religious basis alone is illogical because the principles of the so called Islamic doctrine in governorship affairs reflects nothing but the interpretations of humans who could be right or wrong, so the matter is entirely a human production.
Islam does not articulate a comprehensive framework for organizing government systems that could replace the contemporary details found within the constitution. Outlining such detailed schemes was neither the task nor the aim of Islam. However, blaming Islam for not presenting a distinct political system is tantamount to blaming it for not having a comprehensive theory in psychology, sociology or management sciences.
In fact, Islam came with groups of general rules, which would be more useful if used as guidance when formulating the more detailed regulations. Taking al-MÄwardÄ«'s book ' al-AhkÄm al-SultÄnÄ«yyah' [The Sultanic Commandments], as well as many similar books about the same topic, as examples for such detailed regulations is preferable to demanding too much from vague Islamic statements. Those works are manmade ijtihÄd, which reflect the authors' academic and rational abilities, as well as their cultural and motivational backgrounds while bearing in mind the unavoidable impacts of historical and geographical factors.
My focal point for this article is that there is a clear and powerful logic that can eradicate the viewpoint that is calling for the establishment of political parties based on religious platforms. We can agree that the overall rules that some call 'systems of governorship in Islam' were merely the deductions of men who lived more than one thousand years ago and pondered over the rules that they thought, in their time and place and inasmuch as their understanding, knowledge and conditions were, would lead to the establishment of a governing system representing the essential values of Islam. Once we have agreed about this then we must agree that the so-called 'ruling system in Islam' is a vague and imprecise description of what Muslim jurists wrote more than one thousand years ago in a serious and respected attempt to form bodies that would govern their communities in harmony with the principles and values of Islam.
We should accept the notion that the writings of ancient Muslims with regards to laws and government are valuable attempts that have been inspired by the essence of Islam. This is the most reasonable conclusion any rational mind can reach. Once we have done this then we will have to believe that there has been a lack of ambition within the Muslim community for a period of time exceeding one thousand years to update and expand our political traditions. We must renovate the writings of the ancient jurists as regards the Sultanic commandments so that we can reform our contemporary political and constitutional regulations.
Thus, any discussion that quotes heavily from writings, that were published a thousand years ago, and ignores contemporary Islamic jurisprudential issues will be just like using a book compiled in the tenth century A.D. on medicine and pharmacology as a founding base to establish modern medical systems and institutions. Decidedly, of course, this practice will lead to the death of all the patients.
Islam spoke about donkeys and cattle as important means of transportation. It also spoke about the principle of shÅ«rá [consulting], but not directly about democracy, citizenship and human rights.. Nevertheless, it is shameful for a modern man to insist on using donkeys as his only means of transportation. This kind of decision lead to the conflict between WahÄbÄ«s, led by Faysal al-DarwÄ«sh, and King cAbd al-cAzÄ«z, when the WahÄbÄ«s rejected all the aspects of modern civilization like cars, telephones and radios.
In my belief, the individual who insists on solely using the concept of shūrá is like the person who believes that means of transport should be restricted to donkeys and cattle, on the ground that Islam spoke about donkeys and did not speak about cars, trains or planes.
Current political realities beg the question "Why can't we as Muslims establish political parties based on religious platforms?" Especially in light of the fact that there are numerous political parties in Europe that are described as Christian, the most well-known of them is probably the Christian Democratic Party, to which the German Chancellor Mrs. Merkel belongs.
I have, in front of me while writing these words, the constitutions of all the countries which have Christian parties in addition to the principles of those parties. There is not a single word, in neither the constitutions nor the principles of those parties, that assumes that those parties will rule according to religious fundamentals or according to any other principles but the values contained in their respective constitutions. These parties are Christian in name only. They are political parties representing conservative viewpoints. Their principles and values have been inspired by Christianity but they rule and are ruled by the terms of their constitutions and positive laws.
I do not think that the supporters of a movement like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt will ever dare to announce that their goal in transferring the Brotherhood into a political party is to reach a similar frame of mind as that of the Christian Democratic Party.
There remains one important argument. It is my absolute conviction that political parties who describe themselves as Islamic are acting purely as political bodies. They are simply political entities seeking power. In and of themselves these goals are legal objectives. Yet, some of these parties play an emotional chord when they describe themselves as Islamic. They are nothing but a salafī [fundamental] movement living off of the understandings and deductions of humans who lived more than ten centuries ago and handled the issues of their age through solutions that were consequences of their time and place.
There is no better evidence than that of Muhammad Ibn IdrÄ«s [ImÄm al-ShÄfi cÄ«] who published a new legal system when he arrived in Egypt since his previously published legal doctrine was suitable only for a distinct body politic in Iraq.
The catastrophe is when a people characterized by intellectual indolence, since neither they nor their ancestors have worked to update their political doctrine for one thousand years, want to continue to live as parasites on the understanding of others who worked hard and made every effort ten centuries ago.
In my belief, movements calling themselves political Islamic movements, amongst them the Muslim Brotherhood, unconsciously suffer from tremendous intellectual dilemmas which have very strong and negative impacts on their abilities to form new and modern doctrines of law.
Islam touched on lofty values about justice, equality and the virtues of knowledge. We can call these 'general values' or 'macro values.' Nevertheless, in order to be suitable for times and places other than during the dawning of Islam it did not articulate detailed specific codes or micro values. As such, followers of political Islamic streams of thought are fighting tooth and nail to establish a comprehensive governing system that is not applicable in the modern era. Islam has not prescribed such a detailed system. Therefore, political Islamic movements end up clinging to topics that have little relevance in the modern era, such as the impermissibility of bank interests in Islam and the panel code among others. The best thing for them to do is to admit that Islam came as a sublime religion and not as book in economics, politics, sociology, psychology, chemistry or medicine. However, if they make this admission, how will they play the game of politics? If they make it, they will abandon the strongest tool of their political propaganda. In addition, they will be required to present a realistic political, economical and social program and not their usual tricks and slogans of 'applying God's commands', 'Islam is the solution' and ' al-Barakah [the blessing]'. Such abstract and common slogans, if examined in the practical battlefield of life, would prove to be nothing but big empty air bubbles that contain mere politics and no religion whatsoever.
Regarding the issue of the 'blessings,' many of the kind, simple Muslims think that having people ruling in the name of Islam on top of the community is enough to bring welfare and blessing. To those who think this way I would argue that early Muslims, to be more precise the companions of the Prophet, the al-MuhÄjirÅ«n [emigrants] and al-AnsÄr [supporters] and amongst them the Prophet himself, were defeated in the battle of Uhud. If victory, success, progress, or welfare are achievable through blessings alone, Muslims would have been victorious in Uhud as they clearly had the blessing of the Prophet. However, the defeat of Muslims in Uhud proves that just as God created the creatures of the world, he has also created certain rules and laws to run the universe, amongst them the laws of nature. One of these laws says that whoever fights without the material and practical qualifications of victory will be defeated. Through these laws Muslims, led by TÄriq Ibn ZiyyÄd, won in their conquest of Andalusia and due to the very same laws, Muslims were defeated several centuries later in the Battle of Tours in southern France.
In conclusion, whoever thinks that blessings will come upon him just because he says that he is ruling in the name of Islam will receive results in all fields similar to the defeat in the Battle of Uhud. Victory, progress, and successful leadership come only through science and good administration, which are human tenets that belong to no religion, denomination or nationality. We have no single evidence that those who want to rule their communities in the name of religion acquire any of such tenets. On the contrary, we have shinning evidences acquired from their backgrounds, their ideological history and their relationship with the universality of science, knowledge and the values of progress that they do not and will never acquire these tenets.
by Tarek Heggy
“Tarek Heggy is one of the most creative and prolific writers in the Arab world. His writings probe the political and social limits and present a refreshing message of self-reliance that challenges the prevailing sense that regional ills are largely made abroad”.
(Professor Shibely Telhami, Maryland University, USA).
“Heggy is the most systematic social critic currently active in Egypt”.
(Emmanuel Sivan).
Arab leader should accept Olmert's invitation
munaeem | 04 April, 2007 02:13
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has invited Arab leaders to a regional peace conference to discuss their ideas for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In response to Olmert's call , Saudi Official told The Associated Press that Israel should accept the 2002 Arab peace initiative and launch negotiations with Palestinians and Syria leading to a return of their lands and the creation of a Palestinian state.
The kingdom’s chilly response is not surprising.
The Islamic background to the Saudi state is the biggest obstacle in the face of any reconciliation with Israel.
It is wrong to put pressure on Israel to accept the Saudi peace plan without negotiation. Israel's concerns are justified. Arabs should take into consideration Israel's demographic and security concerns. Even a layman can see that return of hostile Palestinian Arabs will create problems for the Jewish state.
So Arabs states should sit together with Israel and try to find out a solution for this obstacle. If Arabs do not show flexibility, the crisis will not end.
Brotherhood with Ambitions
munaeem | 03 April, 2007 15:23
With eruption of public protests in Egypt against and the government's antidemocracy crackdown, public attention has focused on the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood is a transnational organization, established in Egypt in 1928, which aims to take over the Islamic world. Its goal is establishing a Caliphate, a religious militarized state, as the base to wage war against the "infidel" West. The Muslim Brotherhood today is the best-organized political force in many Arab countries.
The hasty promotion of democracy may bring the Brotherhood to power in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and elsewhere. While some in Washington are ready to accept this risk, it may entail dangerous unintended consequences.
It is important to understand the political thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood, in hopes of shedding some light on an issue many people in the world need to understand.
Unlike Western democracies, which guarantee the political participation of all citizens regardless of ideology, opinion or religion, the Brotherhood makes political participation of individuals in society subject to the principles of Islamic holy law (the Shari'a). While in the West, the legislative and judiciary branches of government monitor state actions to ensure they conform to democratic rules, the actions of the state would be monitored by the Brotherhood to ensure they conform to the rules of Shari'a.
The Brotherhood guarantees freedom of belief only for the followers of the three revealed (Abrahamic) religions. The Brotherhood's position on religious minorities can be summed up by its insistence a non-Muslim can never become president and non-Muslims will be subject to the Shari'a principles on which the entire legal system will be based.
While Western democracies guarantee absolute freedom of the individual as long as it does not impinge on the freedom of others, the Brotherhood limits the freedom of thought within the strict parameters of a code derived from the Shari'a. The Brotherhood calls for restoring hisbah, which allows a private citizen to prosecute any individual who commits an act he considers a breach of the Shari'a even if the plaintiff himself was not personally injured by it. The right of hisbah was recently exercised by a private citizen in Egypt against respected intellectual Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid, whose writings he considered counter to Islamic teachings. The court found for the plaintiff, ruling Abu Zeid an apostate and ordering him to divorce his wife.
In Western democracies, women enjoy the same political rights as men. But as far as the Muslim Brotherhood is concerned, women's political participation would be limited to municipal elections. There is no question, for example, of a woman ever becoming head of state. To further marginalize women and exclude them from any meaningful public role, the Brotherhood calls for educational curricula to include material appropriate for women, tailored to suit the female nature and role and insists on complete segregation of the sexes in classrooms, public transportation and the workplace.
The organization calls for an economic system based on respect of private property. At the same time, however, it insists the system be based on the principles of Islamic Shari'a, which criminalizes charging interest on borrowed money, as by banks. They also call for state ownership of public utilities.
Contrary to the democratic governmental system, based on peaceful rotation of power by elections, the Brotherhood calls for a government based on the principles of Shari'a and the revival of the Islamic Caliphate.
The freedom of association enjoyed by civil organizations in a democracy would, in an Islamist system, be conditional on their adherence to the strictures of Shari'a.
The Brotherhood opposes the notion of a state based on democratic institutions, calling instead for an Islamic government based on the Shura (consultative assembly) system, veneration of the leader and the investiture of a Supreme Guide. In this, they are close to the model established by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran, which enables diehard conservatives (a group to which the Supreme Guide belongs) to nip any reform or renewal in the bud.
Over the last 57 years, the Brotherhood has opposed all attempts for a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The organization will never recognize the legitimacy of Israel.
The Brotherhood calls for a constitutional and legal system based on the principles of Shari'a, including cruel corporal punishments in the penal code (stoning, lashing, cutting off the hands of thieves, etc.). The Muslim Brotherhood has never condemned use of violence against civilians, except when directed against Muslims.
Finally, modern progress is realized by two tools, science and modern management. These are two disciplines of which the Brotherhood has not a vaguest idea. Instead, it promulgates a retrograde ideology, which can be deadly for sustainable economic development, growth in investment, and equality.
Promoting democracy in the Middle East is an imperative necessity for all humanity. Given the right steps, the peoples of the Middle East (as Professor Bernard Lewis repeatedly expounded) are capable of flourishing democratic societies. However, a hasty transformation is likely to be disastrous for the forces of progress in Egypt and in the Middle East.
copyright 2007 Tarek Heggy
“Tarek Heggy is one of the most creative and prolific writers in the Arab world. His writings probe the political and social limits and present a refreshing message of self-reliance that challenges the prevailing sense that regional ills are largely made abroad”.
(Professor Shibely Telhami, Maryland University, USA).
How greed, hatred and corruption engulfed a Palestinian village in sewage
munaeem | 30 March, 2007 05:26
| |
 |
| Umm Nasser sewage spill |
| |
The Passover story tells of Pharaoh's pursuing chariots engulfed in the sea, but the Palestinian village of Umm Nasser, the site of regular rocket launchings against Israel, earlier this week had an even more ignominious fate: drowning in its own accumulated excrement.
"Cesspool of corruption" took on a whole new meaning for the northern Gaza village. The whole incident took on the attributes of a metaphor for what Gaza has become under the Palestinian Authority, and a sign of how the situation may continue to deteriorate if the PA is allowed to continue in power.
The Palestinians were quick to accuse the Israelis, as usual, for the flood of putrid excrement that engulfed a Gaza village, killing five, including two babies. As noted in our original story Palestinian Environment Minister, Dr. Yousef Safia, blamed Israel for the flooding, claiming that Israel had threatened to bomb construction on a modern sewage system if they began working on the project.
But even the locals eventually had to admit that the cause of the levee collapse was the theft by locals of sands from the containing embankment. And metal Israel provided for upgrading the sewage system was used instead to create rockets to fire into Israel.
The worst may lie ahead, since the underlying problems are not being addresses. Further deadly sewage floods are feared. The collapse has been blamed on residents stealing sand from an embankment. Funds and intended for improving infrastructure were diverted for making weapons to attack Israel.
Aid officials say construction of a modern sewage treatment plant has been held up by constant Israeli-Palestinian fighting. The meaning of this constant fighting? "Umm Nasser is about 300 metres from the border with Israel, in an area where Palestinians have frequently launched rockets into Israel and Israeli artillery and aircraft have fired back. The situation worsened after Hamas-linked militants captured an Israeli soldier last June in a cross-border raid, and Israel responded by invading northern Gaza."
The Gaza City mayor blamed the collapse on local people digging dirt from an earthen embankment around the structure and selling it to building contractors, the AP reported.
The existing plant in northern Gaza -- located just a few hundred metres from the frontier with Israel -- stored incoming waste in seven holding basins. But with the burgeoning population producing nearly four times as much waste as the plant could treat, local officials were forced to store the overflow in the nearby dunes, creating a lake of sewage covering nearly 45 hectares, according to the United Nations.
The embankment around one of the seven holding basins, weakened by the theft, collapsed, sending a wall of sewage cascading into the neighbouring village of Umm Naser.
The wave killed two women in their 70s, two toddlers and a teenage girl. It injured 35 others, hospital officials said. More than 200 homes were destroyed, health officials said.
"This is a human tragedy," said Public Works Minister Sameeh al-Abed.
Rescue crews and gunmen from the militant Hamas group rushed to search for people feared buried under the sewage and mud. Most residents fled or were evacuated.
Rescuers in wetsuits paddled boats through the layer of brown foam floating on the green-brown rivers of waste. Others waded up to their hips into the sewage.
Angry residents drove reporters out of the area and mobbed government officials. When Interior Minister Hani Kawasmeh arrived to survey the damage, his bodyguards had to fire in the air to disperse the crowd, according to the AP report.
In one house, everything from the television to the sink was covered in muck. The town was filled with the smell of human waste and dead animals.
"We lost everything. Everything was covered by the flood. It's a disaster," said Amina Afif, 65, whose small shack was destroyed.
The collapse will force officials to divert the waste into the other six basins, increasing the danger to those basins as well. Another collapse could send sewage flooding into nearby Beit Lahiya, a far larger town, local officials said.
Fadel Kawash, head of the Palestinian Water Authority, said the sewage level had risen in recent days, creeping up the earthen embankments.
Gaza City Mayor Majid Abu Ramadan, who leads a council of Gaza municipalities, blamed the collapse on endemic lawlessness. He accused local residents of stealing the dirt and selling it to building companies for 300 shekels ($70) a truckload.
The Jerusalem Post reported earlier this month that metal provided by Israel had been used in the construction of those terrorist rockets. And why was Israel selling the Palestinians metal? "For the construction of a sewage system in Gaza."
Israel tries to help Palestinians built a sewage system and the Palestinians divert the money and metal to create rockets to attack Israel. Palestinians then sell the sand from an embankment holding back a cesspool, and one fine day are engulfed in their own excrement.
The story may not have the biblical proportions of Pharaoh and his chariots, but it would be difficult for a creative writer to construct a more fitting illustration of tragic justice.
Source : web.israelinsider.com |
Egypt's Referendum Passes, America Sits Quiet
munaeem | 30 March, 2007 01:17
Egyptian government has announced that the referendum to approve changes to the constitution has been approved.According to Egypt’s Justice Minister Mandouh Marei, around 27 percent of eligible voters took part in the national referendum, which passed by more than three-quarters of the votes.
Egyptians are likely to regard the figures with considerable skepticism as many polling stations were virtually deserted for hours in the capital, Cairo. The country's leading rights group, the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, estimated that only 2-3 percent of the electorate had voted five hours before polls closed.
The approval of the constitutional amendments means the government will have the power to try civilians in military courts, which do not allow appeals, and to arrest and jail Egyptian citizens without warrants.
One of the most controversial changes is the addition of an amendment that bans the formation of any political party or political activity based on religion. The Muslim Brotherhood, the most powerful opposition force, but officially banned by the government, can no longer seek official party status in Egypt.
Mubarak sounded pleased when he addressed the nation on television about an hour after the figures were announced.
The White House criticized Egypt, a close ally in the Middle East, on Tuesday for a referendum on changes to its constitution, saying a "vast majority" of Egyptians did not vote.
Passage of the referendum comes after a weekend of discussion in Aswan between US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, President Mubarak, and other Egyptian leaders. Secretary Rice says she voiced American concerns about Egypt’s constitutional amendments, but after the meeting, Rice focused most of her comments to reporters on Egypt’s role in promoting Middle East peace. Brookings researcher Wittes says the shift away from domestic issues reflects Washington’s hope of support from Cairo on delicate regional negotiations.
Read : Religious Extremism In Egypt
EGYPT: Tribute to U.S. General Draws Fire
munaeem | 13 March, 2007 14:18
Cairo's decision last month to award U.S. General John Abizaid a prestigious medal of honour has angered much of the political opposition.
The government move underscored Cairo's "strategic relationship" with Washington in the face overwhelming public disapproval of U.S. policy in the region.
"Abizaid is despised by the Egyptian people -- probably by all Arabs -- for the role he played in Iraq," Refaat al-Saeed, head of the socialist Tegemmu Party told IPS.
"Honouring him in this way is like honouring (former Israeli prime ministers) Ariel Sharon or Benjamin Netanyah."
During a two-day visit to Cairo in mid-February, Abizaid -- former head of the U.S. Central Command -- was awarded Egypt's first-class medal of merit on the occasion of his retirement.
The medal was presented by defence minister Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi.
Egypt blogger jailed for 'insult'
munaeem | 22 February, 2007 16:30
An Egyptian court has sentenced a blogger to four years' prison for insulting Islam and the president. Abdel Kareem Soliman's trial was the first time that a blogger had been prosecuted in Egypt.
He had used his web log to criticise the country's top Islamic institution, al-Azhar university and President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.
A human rights group called the verdict "very tough" and a "strong message" to Egypt's thousands of bloggers.
Soliman, 22, was tried in his native city of Alexandria. He blogs under the name Kareem Amer.
A former student at al-Azhar, he called the institution "the university of terrorism" and accused it of suppressing free thought.
The university expelled him in 2006 and pressed prosecutors to put him on trial.
'Slap in the face'
During the five-minute court session the judge said Soliman was guilty and would serve three years for insulting Islam and inciting sedition, and one year for insulting Mr Mubarak.
| On blogs everyone is allowed to write what they want. This proves how unintelligent the president and Al-Azahr are
Kasia
|
Egypt arrested a number of bloggers who had been critical of the government during 2006, but they were all subsequently freed. Hafiz Abou Saada of the Egyptian Human Rights Organisation called the sentence "a strong message to all bloggers who are put under strong surveillance".
The UK-based organisation Amnesty International said the ruling was "yet another slap in the face of freedom for expression in Egypt".
Fellow blogger Amr Gharbeia told the BBC it would not stop Egyptian bloggers from expressing opinions as "it is very difficult to control the blogosphere".
There have been no reported comments on the sentence from the Egyptian authorities.
