On the seventh of this month, I concluded this column, which addressed Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Europe and the lies and fabrications of both him and his fascistic racist government, with the following: “Finally, I noticed as I collected material for this column and discussed information with officials, that both Netanyahu and Hizb-ut-Tahrir share the same stance in opposing the Palestinian reconciliation.” This then unleashed a campaign by Hizb-ut-Tahrir and its supporters that has yet to abate, and if this proves anything, it would be that extremism, like blasphemy, is one single universal entity. I have attacked the Prime Minister of Israel and the advocates of the Hebrew State at every occasion. As a result, two extremist Israelis responded to me, as well as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which was not impressed by the 70 lines of unequivocal criticism against Israel that I wrote. Hizb-ut-Tahrir's controversial statement was directed at Hamas, and mentioned in the beginning, “[…] but you use reconciliation as a cover for a grave political agreement (it would be more correct to say dangerous, because grave means serious), and call this grave agreement “reconciliation”. We thus warn you of God and of the consequences of disobeying Him”. Thus, the reconciliation, which the statement put between two small brackets, becomes a sin against God, and yet, Hizb-ut-Tahrir claims that it is not opposed to it, and if it did then it would be encouraging Hamas to disobey God. But Hizb-ut-Tahrir objected to the reconciliation at every point of the statement. In the fourth point, the statement mentions that “a thousand political divisions are better than accord over the squandering of Palestine”. This is opposition, and any other claim is a lie. The insolence of this party was reaffirmed through two messages sent to me by Maher al-Jabari, member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir's media council. The first message was sent on the seventh of May, to deny the party's opposition to the reconciliation agreement, and it was written reasonably well. But before I had the chance to respond, I received a despicable message from Jabari on the ninth of May that reminded me of the party's entire past. He chose as the message's title “Eyes that don't see and Ears that don't hear” [a play on the column's title], although I do not use spectacles nor need them. But anyway this does not matter because the main issue here is Jabari's insensibility and lack of insight, as he condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden, the holy warrior Sheikh as he described him, and even insulted the memories of Yassin and Rantissi when he placed bin Laden along with them in the line of true martyrs. Nevertheless, I want to thank him for reminding me of my article published on 24/12/2003, an important date as such, wherein I wrote in defense of Egypt and the late then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher (may he rest in peace), after he was assaulted by the thugs of Hizb-ut-Tahrir at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the sanctity of which they had violated. I said that I trust Hosni Mubarak and Ahmed Maher, more than I trust some of the Palestinian negotiators themselves, and apologized to all the Egyptians for the humiliation suffered by their country and their minister and said, “The Egyptian people lead the way when it comes to their exemplary support of the Palestinian Cause.” Egypt has made a thousand times more sacrifices than Hizb-ut-Tahrir ever did for Palestine. There was something else in that old article that Jabari also ignored for obvious reasons. I had wondered in it whether Hizb-ut-Tahrir is the same party, whose leader was arrested at the Lebanese border at the Masnaa crossing in the early fifties, carrying a 100 thousand dollar check from the U.S. embassy. This incident is well known, and was documented by the Lebanese press at the time. I also add here that the President and Founder of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Taqi al-Din Nabahani, was once reproached by the party members for accepting money from the Americans. But his response was humorous and he said: “So what? I went to the U.S. Embassy and called on them to convert to Islam but they refused, so I imposed the Jizya [tribute paid by non-Muslims] on them”. This is the party that wants to teach us patriotism. However, I want to return to Jabari, member of the media office, who represents his party very aptly. He said, literally, citing what I wrote: “[Mr. Khazen said:] My talks in Egypt over a whole week were about the youths' revolution, which is nothing short of a miracle” in his Ayoon Wa Azan published on 12/4/2011, and in which [Mr. Khazen] said that Egypt was ruled by a “busker and by ministers who did not finish junior school”. So if his confidence, which surpasses his own self-confidence, was placed in a busker, then how can we trust a journalist whose statements confirm the banality of his logic and the superficiality of his assertions?” Al-Jabari thus accused me of the banality and superficiality that he himself suffers from, because I had not uttered the above in the fashion he presented. Instead, I was expressing my surprise at the headlines of Egyptian newspapers following the collapse of the Mubarak regime, and reproduced them in my column. I said (literally once again): “On the other hand, the coverage of Al-Wafd felt more like a settling of accounts than it was news. I read “Capital punishment for Mubarak, Gamal, al-Sharif, Srour and Azmi”, and this of course before their indictment, let alone conviction. I also read that Mubarak's men were a bunch of “Mamlouk Thieves”, that “Alaa is a hustler and a thief” and that “Egypt was ruled by a busker and ministers who did not finish junior school”. I also read that seven ministers “Paid bribes to Gamal Mubarak to be appointed as ministers” (The above is less than half of the headlines on the front page of Thursday's issue).” I was thus quoting Al-Wafd to express my surprise at the change, but Jabari misquoted me because he is in the business of fabrication. This is why he denies that his party's statement is opposed to the reconciliation, and builds his response on this lie with the result being that it is all spewed with lies. Personally, my preference when it comes to Arab religious parties comprises the Muslim Brotherhood, and from the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance factions Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, while I suffice myself with Al-Azhar as the reference point for Islamic religious affairs. [email protected]
