I am with Terrorism

[Bilal]

"I am with Terrorism"

I think it is important to translate from Arabic to English some will known poet and literature to show how really ‘’the others are thinking). Qabbani is one of the most popular Arab peot in modern age:

Source:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/arabic/7206

((Nizar Qabbani was buried today in his hometown of Damascus. Nizar Qabbani is one of the Arab most influential poets. His poems about women and women rights in the Arab world won him both praise and condemnation. He also attacked the Arab regimes as well as the rape of Palestine.
After the death of his wife (Balkis - a rose) in Beirut in a car bombing of the Iraqi embassy where she worked, he wrote a devastating poem that expressed his love and longing for his wife and condemnation of the state of the Arab condition. (For those of you who are Star Trek fans, do you remember that entity that was married to a human women and when aliens attacked the planet and killed his wife, in a moment of rage he destroyed them all? Not just the attacking ships but all of them.))

I am with Terrorism

We are accused of terrorism:

if we defended rose and woman

and the mighty verse ...

and the blueness of sky ...

A dominion .. nothing left therein...

No water, no air ..

No tent, no camel,

and not even dark Arabica coffee!

We are accused of terrorism:

if we defended with guts

the hair of Balqis

and the lips of Maysun

if we defended Hind, and Da`d

Lubna and Rabab ..

and the stream of Kohl

coming down from their lashes like the verses of revelation.

You will not find with me

a secret poem

or a secret logos

or books I put behind doors.

I do not even have one Qasidah

walking down the street, wearing Hijab.


We are accused of terrorism:

if we wrote about the ruins of a homeland

torn, weak ...

a homeland with no address

and a nation with no name

I seek the remnants of a watan

none of its grand poems is left

except the bemoans of Khansa.

I seek a dominion in whose horizons

no freedom can be found

red .. blue or yellow.

A homeland forbidding us from buying a newspaper

or listening to the news.

A dominion wherein birds are forbidden

from chirping.

A homeland wherein, out of terror [ru`b],

its writers got accustomed to write about

nothing.

A watan, in the likeness of poetry in our lands : It is vain talk,

no rhythm,

imported

Ajam, with a crooked face and tongue:

No beginning

No end

No relation with people's worry

mother earth

and the crisis of man.

A dominion ...

going to peace talks

with no honor

no shoe.

A homeland,

men peed in their pans ..

women are those left to defend honor.

Salt in our eyes

Salt in our lips

Salt in our words

Can the self carry such dryness?

An inheritance we got from the barren Qahtan?

In our nation, no Mu`awiya, and no Abu Sufiyan

No one is left to say "NO"

and face the quitters

they gave up our houses, our bread and our [olive] oil.

They transformed our bright history into a mediocre store.

In our lives, no Qasidah is left,

since we lost our chastity in the bed of the Sultan.

They got accustomed to us, the humbled.

What is left to man

when all that remains

is disgrace.

I seek in the books of history

Ussamah ibn al-Munqith

Uqba ibn Nafi`

Omar, and Hamzah

and Khalid, driving his flocks toward Sham . I seek a Mu`tasim Billah

Saving women from the cruelty of rape

and the fire.

I seek latter days men

All I can see is frightened cats

Scared for their own souls, from

the sultanship of mice.

Is this an overwhelming national blindness?

Are we blind to colors?

We are accused of terrorism

If we refuse to die

with Israel's bulldozers

tearing our land

tearing our history

tearing our Evangelium

tearing our Koran

tearing the graves of our prophets

If this was our sin,

then, lo, how beautiful terrorism is?

We are accused of terrorism

if we refused to be effaced

by the hands of the Mogul, Jews and Barbarians

if we throw a stone

at the glass of the the Security Council

after the Ceasar of Ceasar got a hold of it.

We are accused of terrorism

if we refuse to negociate with the wolf

and shake the hand with a whore

Amrika

Against the cultures of the peoples

with no culture

Against the civilizations of the civilized

with no civilization

Amrika

a mighty edifice

with no walls!

We are accused of terrorism:

if we refused an era

Amrika became

the foolish, the rich, the mighty

translated, sworn

in Ivri.

We are accused of terrorism:

if we throw a rose

to Jerusalem

to al-Khalil

to Ghazza

to an-Nasirah

if we took bread and water

to beleaguered Troy.

We are accused of terrorism:

if we raised our voices against

the regionalists of our leaders.

All changed their rides:

from Unionists

to Brokers.

If we committed the heinous crime of culture

if we revolted against the orders of the grand caliph

and the seat of the caliphate

If we read jurisprudence or politics

If we recalled God

and read Surat al-Fat-h

[that Chapter of Conquest].

If we listened to the Friday sermon

then we are well-established in the art of terrorism

We are accused of terrorism

if we defended land

and the honor of dust

if we revolted against the rape of people

and our rape

if we defended the last palm trees in our desert

the last stars in our sky

the last syllabi of our names

the last milk in our mothers' bossoms

if this was our sin

how beautiful is terrorism.

I am with terrorism

if it is able to save me

from the immigrants from Russia

Romania, Hungaria, and Poland

They settled in Palestine

set foot on our shoulders

to steal the minarets of al-Quds

and the door of Aqsa

to steal the arabesques

and the domes.

I am with terrorism

if it will free the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth,

and the virgin, Meriam Betula

and the holy city

from the ambassadors of death and desolation

Yesteryear

The nationalist street was fervent

like a wild horse.

The rivers were abundant with the spirit of youth.


But after Olso,

we no longer had teeth:

we are now a blind and lost people.

We are accused of terrorism:

if we defended with full-force

our poetic heritage

our national wall

our rosy civilization

the culture of flutes in our mountains

and the mirrors displaying blackened eyes.

We are accused of terrorism:

if we defended what we wrote

El azure of our sea

and the aroma of ink

if we defended the freedom of the word

and the holiness of books

I am with terrorism

if it is able to free a people

from tyrants and tyranny

if it is able to save man from the cruelty of man

to return lemon, olive tree, and bird to the South of Lebanon

and the smile back to Golan

I am with terrorism

if it will save me

from the Ceasar of Yehuda

and the Ceasar of Rome

I am with terrorism

as long as this new world order

is shared

between Amrika and Israel

half-half

I am with terrorism

with all my poetry

with all my words

and all my teeth

as long as this new world

is in the hands of a butcher.

I am with terrorism

if the U.S. Senate

enacts judgement

decrees reward and punishment

I am with terrorism

as long this new world order

hates the smell of A`rab.

I am with terrorism

as long as the new world order

wants to slaughter my off-spring.

and send them to dogs.

For all this

I raise my voice high:

I am with terrorism

I am with terrorism

I am with terrorism ...

- Nizar Qabbani London, 15 Nisan (April) 1997.

 

[Gonzolo]

I read it. Is he encouraging all Arabs to be terrorists?

 

[Bilal]

It depends on the definition of terrorism..

If you define the terrorism as resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators ... then he support that.

But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it ... especially he lost his wife in terrorist attacks against the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut ... he cried a lot for her.

By the way, Qabbani had hard time with Arab dictators and some Islamic groups, he was called ''the poet of women '', because most of his poem about supporting women rights.

I read it. Is he encouraging all Arabs to be terrorists?

 

[Janitor]

I wonder

...

tearing our Evangelium

tearing our Koran

tearing the graves of our prophets
...

- Nizar Qabbani London, 15 Nisan (April) 1997.

If you could bring yourself to pretend--just for a few seconds--that the deity of the Koran is merely a fiction that The Prophet falsely believed was real, would it drastically change the impact that Qabbani's writing has on you?

 

[Bilal]

Qabbani is not religious, even many Muslims rejected to pray on his body in the mosque after his death. This means they did not believe he is Muslim.

He is one of the leaders of the liberal Arab who fight against dictators, occupation and imperialist and fight for freedom and women rights in Arab world.

It is strange that you chose just few words mentioned Koran from such long poem! He also mentioned some words about Christian:

I am with terrorism

if it will free the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth,

and the virgin, Meriam Betula

and the holy city

from the ambassadors of death and desolation

I think ‘’tearing the Koran’’ is symbolic refer to external imperialists forces who want to destroy our culture …. The same as he talked about Jesus and Mary .. who represent the Christian part of Arab culture …. Such symbolism is well known in Arabic poem

The importance of this poem is to prove that the conflict is not ''pure religious'' as many American think. Arab liberals (many among them are from christian background : Edward Saeed, Azmi Beshara, Elias Khouri ...) were the leaders of anti dictators and anti imperialists resistance for decades .. till the rise of Islamic groups in last 15 years.
****************
You can see Qabbani in the American University of Beirut :

http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/projects/public/qabbani/nizarintro.ram

If you could bring yourself to pretend--just for a few seconds--that the deity of the Koran is just a fiction that The Prophet falsely believed was real, would it drastically change the impact that Qabbani's writing has on you?

 

[Bilal]

Another poem
**************
Qana is town in South of Lebanon was under UN control. The Israeli murdered 120 civilians in this town in 1995. USA used Veto to protect Israel after the report of UN showed that Israel is completely responsible about this massacre ... this report was main reason that USA kicked out the former UN secretary , Butrus Ghali.
More information about Qana massacre ….

http://www.future.com.lb/qana/


**********************

The face of Qana
Pale, like that of Jesus
And the sea breeze of Nisan
Rains of blood.. and tears..
They entered Qana stepping on our charred bodies
Raising a Nazi flag in the lands of the South
And rehearsing its stormy chapters..
Hitler cremated them in the gaschambers..
And they came after him to burn us..
Hitler kicked them out of Eastern Europe
And they kicked us out of our lands
Hitler did not find the time to destroy them
And relieve Earth of their mischief
They came after him..
To destroy us

They entered Qana
Like hungry wolves
Putting to fire the house of the Messiah..
Stepping on the Thob of Hussain..
And the dear land of the South

Blasted Wheat, Olive-trees and Tobacco
And the melodies of the nightingale
Blasted Cadmus in his bark
Blasted sea and the gulls
Blasted hospitals
Nursing moms
And schoolboys..
Blasted the beauty of the Southern women
And murdered the gardens of the honeyed eyes


WE saw the tears in Ali's eyes
We heard his voice as he prayed
Under the rain of bloody skies..


Who ever will write about the history of Qana
Will inscribe in his parchments
This was the second Karbala


Qana unveiled what was hidden
We saw Amrika
Wearing the old coat of a Jewish Rabbi
Leading the slaughter
Blasting our children for no reason
Blasting our wives for no reason
Blasting our trees for no reason
Blasting our thoughts for no reason
Has it been decreed in her constitution,
She, Amrika, mistress of the world,
In Hebrew.. that she should humble us all-Arab?


Has it been decreed that each time a ruler in Amrika
Wants to win the presidency that he should kill us..
We all-Arab?


We waited for one Arab to come
Pull this thorny prick from our necks
We waited for single Qurei****e
A single Hashemite
A single Don Quixote
A single Qabadaya, for whom they did not shave the moustache
We waited for a Khalid.. A Tariq.. or Antara..
We were eaten Tharthara (while engaged in vain talk)
The sent a fax
We read its text
Way after paying tribute
And the end of the Majzara (slaughter)..


What does Yisrael fear from our cries?
What does she fear from our faxes?
The Jihad of the fax is the weakest of Jihads..
It is a single text we write
For all the martyrs who left..
And all the martyrs those who will come


What does Yisrael frear from Ibn al-Muqaffa?
Jarir and .. Farazdag?
And Khansa throwing her poems at the gates of the Maqbara (cemetery)
What does she fear if we burn tires
Sign communiques
And destroy shops
And she knows that we have never been kings of Harb (war)
But were kings of Tharthara (wild belching)


What does Yisrael fear
From the beating of the drums
The tearing of clothes
And the scratching of Khudud
What does she fear when she hears
The stories of 'Ad and Thamud?


We are in national ivresse
We did not receive
Since the times of conquest..
The Barid


We are a people made of dough
The more Yisrael increases in her killing and terrorism
The more we increase in idleness and Burud (coldness)


A Smothering Dominion
A regional dialect that increases in ugliness
And a green union that grows in isolation
Summer trees, growing barren
And borders.. whenever the whim strikes
Erase other borders


Yisrael should slaughter us, and why not?
She should erase Hisham, Ziyad and ar-Rashid, and why not?
Why not? And the Banu Taghlab lusting after their women
Why not? And Banu Mazen lusting after their ghilman (slave boys)
Why not? And Banu Adnan dropping their trousers to their knees
Debating.. necking and .. the lips!


What should Yisrael fear from some of All-Arab
When they became Yehuda?

*****************************

The Fortune Teller
By: Nizar Kabbani ( Translated from Arabic Language):


She sat with fear in her eyes
Contemplating the upturned cup
She said "Do not be sad, my son
You are destined to fall in love"
My son,Who sacrifices himself for his beloved,
Is a martyr

For long have I studied fortune-telling
But never have I read a cup similar to yours
For long have I studied fortune-telling
But never have I seen sorrows similar to yours
You are predestined to sail forever
Sail-less, on the sea of love
Your life is forever destined
To be a book of tears
And be imprisoned
Between water and fire

But despite all its pains,
Despite the sadness
That is with us day and night
Despite the wind
The rainy weather
And the cyclone
It is love, my son
That will be forever the best of fates

There is a woman in your life, my son
Her eyes are so beautiful
Glory to God
Her mouth and her laughter
Are full of roses and melodies
And her gypsy and crazy love of life
Travels the world
The woman you love
May be your whole world
But your sky will be rain-filled
Your road blocked, blocked, my son
Your beloved, my son, is sleeping
In a guarded palace
He who approaches her garden wall
Who enters her room
And who proposes to her
Or tries to unite her plaits
Will cause her to be lost, my son...lost

You will seek her everywhere, my son
You will ask the waves of the sea about her
You will ask the shores of the seas
You will travel the oceans
And your tears will flow like a river
And at the close of your life
You will find that since your beloved
Has no land, no home, no address
You have been pursuing only a trace of smoke
How difficult it is, my son
To love a woman
Who has neither land, nor home

 

[Gonzolo]

The importance of this poem is to prove that the conflict is not ''pure religious'' as many American think. Arab liberals (many among them are from christian background : Edward Saeed, Azmi Beshara, Elias Khouri ...) were the leaders of anti dictators and anti imperialists resistance for decades .. till the rise of Islamic groups in last 15 years.

I personnally think that the litteral "terrorists", i.e. the people who use bombs and violence to attack and terrorize civilians, use religion as a pretext to recruit people into their groups. By mixing religion and bombs themselves (especially with the concept of "Jihad") to convince Arabs of their "cause", the leaders of such groups also confuse Americans into being very skeptical of Islam. I don't think it's pure religious, although many probably do.

As of today, I believe the true purpose of the group leaders is to gain land, power, money and personnal respect. It's a conflict of poorer against richer, and their motivation is the fact that 1000 years ago, it is the Muslim/Arab world which was richer.

 

[Janitor]

Bilal,

I realize that this may sound to you like it is off of your topic, but what is your evaluation, as a Palestinian, of this:

Islamic teaching states that women may not choose to use birth control out of fear of supporting the children, nor may they simply decide they do not want any more children. The use of contraceptives is allowed only if a pregnancy would harm the mother or the unborn child. Muslims believe that Allah (God) sanctioned procreation that would lead to a larger Muslim nation.

which I found here:

http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectives/youdecide/pop/overpop/4yes.html

 

[Bilal]

Jihad has many other meanings in Arabic. Even many Arab Christian are called ''Jihad'' , ( Jihad Khazen = well known Lebanese Christian journalist). Anyway , this is will be long topic , especially the Arab/Muslims understood it in different way than American show it.

I do not know what you means by the leaders of these groups, but if you mean the Islamic groups, then you are incorrect.

The main difference between Islamic groups and most of other groups, that the leaders of firs groups are willing to scarify their lives and money for their principles...

For example:

Hizbullah : The son of his leaders was killed in attack against the Israeli occupation army in south Lebanon.

Hamas : Most of its leaders were killed by Israeli. They used to be on the fire lines fighting with their soldiers.

Even OBL is very rich person who can live very wealthy life n, but he decided to use his money and his life for his ''ideas''.


There is global resistance in the East after the end of the Anglo-French colonist era. This resistance directed against the corrupted dictators and puppet regimes and against the Zionism project in ME. In last decades, nationalists, liberals and communists used to be the leaders of this resistance ... it seems recently that Islamic groups got more power among these groups.

As of today, I believe the true purpose of the group leaders is to gain land, power, money and personnal respect. It's a conflict of poorer against richer, and their motivation is the fact that 1000 years ago, it is the Muslim/Arab world which was richer.

 

[Bilal]

Muslims since very early Islam used “birth control”, even some early scholars (7 th century) explained how they can control birth (by letting man sperm pour outside).

(Opposite to catholic and Judaism, from Islamic point: Sex between husband and wife is considered as essential part of marriage and it is encouraged strongly, even if parents do not intent to get kids from the relation)


Currently, in all Islamic countries there are Fatwa agree or even support ‘’birth control’’.

There are misunderstanding with controlling ‘’birth” and encouraging having many kids. Islam encourages the family to have many kids ‘’as most of other religions’’, but it is up to the parents to decide the number of their kids.


In other words, from Islamic views: it is not sin to make control birth, but it is better to have many kids if you have the ability for that.

In Palestine, the average number of kids of the family was 10 kids before 50 years, currently the average around 6 kids (it is still from the highest in the world)

I realize that this may sound to you like it is off of your topic, but what is your evaluation, as a Palestinian, of this:



which I found here:

http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectives/youdecide/pop/overpop/4yes.html

 

[Gonzolo]

Jihad has many other meanings in Arabic. Even many Arab Christian are called ''Jihad'' , ( Jihad Khazen = well known Lebanese Christian journalist). Anyway , this is will be long topic , especially the Arab/Muslims understood it in different way than American show it.

I do not know what you means by the leaders of these groups, but if you mean the Islamic groups, then you are incorrect.

The main difference between Islamic groups and most of other groups, that the leaders of firs groups are willing to scarify their lives and money for their principles...

For example:

Hizbullah : The son of his leaders was killed in attack against the Israeli occupation army in south Lebanon.

Hamas : Most of its leaders were killed by Israeli. They used to be on the fire lines fighting with their soldiers.

Even OBL is very rich person who can live very wealthy life n, but he decided to use his money and his life for his ''ideas''...

Americans basically translate "Jihad" to "Holy war", which is, as far as I'm concerned a contradiction in terms with no credibility, it makes no sense. Nothing "holy" is associated with violence according to the other religions I'm familiar with. It may not be the best translation, but it is the one that runs around.

Some counter this argument with the the Crusades of the Christians, well, first I probably don't understand them fully, second, they were a failure themselves : Christians and Muslims should have learned the lesson, and third, if all Muslim/Arabs do recognize that a (Holy) "War" against America is actually going on (I don't think every Muslims do), then America has quite a right to defend itself in any way it can, and since Islam has no borders, then whether the US goes after Afghanistan, or Iraq or any other countries where Muslims predominate almost becomes irrelevent. Either borders between countries matter, or they don't. The "terrorist" groups seem to think they don't (between the arab countries).

The groups I had in mind are exactly those 3 :, Al Quaeda, Hamas, and Hisbullah.

"The main difference between Islamic groups and most of other groups, that the leaders of firs groups are willing to scarify their lives and money for their principles..."

I totally agree with that statement (except I don't think it's all Islamic groups). What I think most Americans don't agree with and frankly don't even respect much is "sacrify their lives". This crosses the line. I value life more than any principle. If someone suicides, it don't like it, it is sad, and I can manage to feel for that person. But if someone suicides and brings along people who wish to live, how can I possibly approve of that and admire that person? It defeats the purpose of having a principle. Even Hindus who believe in reincarnation don't do that. Those three groups cannot earn respect from the rest of the world if such actions are acceptable to them. No one wants people like that as their neighboor.

 

[russ_watters]

It depends on the definition of terrorism..

If you define the terrorism as resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators ... then he support that.

Well, I could call "coffee" "tea", but that would confuse a lot of people. Definitions are supposed to be constant and consistently applied, otherwise the words truly are meaningless.

Terrorism is a word that terrorists have to attempt to cloud because the objective definition isn't a positive one. Applying the real definition objectively means terrorists truly are evil.

But hey, if you don't like the word, there are plenty of other ones that can describe those people and their actions: murderers, criminals, outlaws, savages, barbarians, evil, etc. Take your pick.

 

[EL]

Btw, what's the definition of "evil"?

 

[russ_watters]

Btw, what's the definition of "evil"?

EVIL:

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

 

[EL]

:tongue2:
Well we can continue this for a while:
What is "morally bad or wrong"?

 

[plover]

As far as I know, the literal translation of "jihad" is not "holy war" but simply "striving", and as a religious doctrine indicates many kinds of sacrifices that a Muslim may make toward spiritual goals. While I think the specific meaning of ejecting the ungodly from Muslim society has been around since almost the founding of Islam, my impression is also that that has not historically been the most important definition. The terror groups obviously use the word as a spiritual justification for their violence, but how many Muslims accept this justification? Are there non-violent interpretations of what jihad against Western nations might mean? Or do Muslims who are angry about the actions of Western powers in the Middle East, but who would never countenance terrorism use a different concept?

For a long time, European countries used the word "mission" in the sense of "mission to Christianize heathens" as a justification for colonialism. Bush has used the word "crusade" in reference to the current U.S. wars in the Middle East.

All of these ideas have complicated histories, and there is certainly no consensus on how to interpret them.

(I certainly invite Bilal to correct any misinterpretation of "jihad" I have made here.)

 

[plover]

It depends on the definition of terrorism..

If you define the terrorism as resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators ... then he support that.

Well, I could call "coffee" "tea", but that would confuse a lot of people. Definitions are supposed to be constant and consistently applied, otherwise the words truly are meaningless.

Terrorism is a word that terrorists have to attempt to cloud because the objective definition isn't a positive one. Applying the real definition objectively means terrorists truly are evil.

Did you really not read the next sentence of Bilal's post?

But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it ... especially he lost his wife in terrorist attacks against the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut ... he cried a lot for her.

I'm not sure how you justify that Bilal (or Qabbani in other than a literary fashion—and if you understand the use of metaphor in Islamic poetry, I'm a camel) is blurring the definition of terrorism. The most coherent interpretation I've been able to come up with for your post is the pathetically one-dimensional idea that anyone who wants to resist Western actions in the Middle East, and calls Westerners imperialists just wants to blur the meaning of terrorism (no matter what tactics they would or would not support).

So, how much of this reflects your actual thinking and how much is just sloppy writing?

And what do you call resisting occupation by imperialists and dictators?

 

[russ_watters]

:tongue2:
Well we can continue this for a while:
What is "morally bad or wrong"?

Are you being purposefully obtuse? I won't play the game.

Did you really not read the next sentence of Bilal's post?

Bilal says a lot of contradictory things and talks in generalities instead of specifics. The primary, specific tatic used by Hizbullah, Hamas, and Al Queada is terrorism. Period. You strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a bus station, that's terrorism. Period. The motivation is irrelevant obfuscation, rationalization, and misdirection.

 

[plover]

Bilal says a lot of contradictory things and talks in generalities instead of specifics.

It doesn't look like he's contradicted himself (but it's not impossible). Come back when your Arabic is as good as his English. Accusing someone of obfuscation before you know what they're saying just looks like gratuitous hostility.

The primary, specific tatic used by Hizbullah, Hamas, and Al Queada is terrorism. Period. You strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a bus station, that's terrorism. Period.

And someone implied otherwise, um... where? (No, not there, read it more carefully.)

The motivation is irrelevant obfuscation, rationalization, and misdirection.

If you can't distinguish between the anger and defiance and despair that most Palestinians (or Syrians—Qabbani was Syrian) experience and the will to commit terrorism, I'm not sure what I can say.

 

[plover]

"I am with terrorism" —
If this translation is remotely accurate, I can think of at least four meanings for this:

• "I embrace terrorism" - it seems clear from the poem that this one is intended ironically
• "I contain terrorism" - the fear that despair might lead to embracing terrorism
• "I am counted as a terrorist" - the feeling of being seen as no different from the terrorists
• "Terrorism is with me" - the sense of living in the shadow of terrorism and terrorists

 

[kat]

I think there should be some clarification about who Qabbani was and why he should be considered in a more positive light then I see him being considered here.
Qabbani had spent most of his life in Lebanon to escape from Hafez Assad (Syrian) Lebanon was for a very long time the "jewel of the middle east" with much freedom in the arts as well as many "western" ideals, fashions and institutions. Many writers of political pieces found refuge in Lebanon at the time. Qabbani was a supporter of Democracy and against dictatorship, although he was bitter about syria losing the war to Israel and was very anti-Israeli.
Also, his wife was not just killed by terrorist, he was killed by Syrian supported forces conveniently called "terrorist" in the Arab world.
His poem written after his second wifes death is haunting and I think portrays his beliefs in a more clarifying manner.

1
Thank you…
Thank you…
For my love was assassinated…

You can now have a drink over her grave.
Thank you…
Thank you…
For my poem was assassinated…
And is there a nation on Earth…save ours…that
assassinates poems?

2
Balqis…
Most beautiful queen in the history of Babel
Balqis…
Tallest palm in the land of Iraq
When she walked…
Peacocks wandered about her
Deer followed her gait
Balqis…This pain of mine…
The ache of a poem quivering at the touch of a finger
Pray tell…Will the wheat rise again in the fields
Now that your hair in the wind no longer weaves?
Oh, green Nineveh... My fair-haired gypsy…
Like waves on the Tigris in the spring
Adorning your feet with the prettiest of anklets

3
They killed you, Oh Balqis…
What Arab nation is this that assassinates…
The songs of nightingales?
What became of chivalrous Samaou’al?
Where are you, Muhalhal, the poet hero?
Where have all the noble men of old gone?
Tribes have pounced on tribes…
Foxes have killed foxes…
Spiders have crushed spiders…
I swear by your eyes
Where slumber a million stars
I will tell, my sweet Moon, about the Arabs
Stories from far beyond Mars
Is heroism an Arab lie?
Or is History, like us, a pathological liar??

4
Oh Balqis…Don't fade away from me…
After you the sun shines no more on these seashores
I will tell in the inquiry
That the thief was disguised as a fighter
I will tell in the inquiry
That the gifted leader is now for hire…
I will tell about the myth of enlightenment
For we are one tribe among so many…
That is our History…Oh Balqis…
And how is a man to tell gardens from dump yards?

5
Balqis…
Martyr and poem…Pure and sublime…
Sheba searches for her queen…
Don’t you hear the cheers of the crowds?
Oh most magnificent of queens…
Woman in whom Sumer in all her glory was cast
Balqis…
Gentlest of birds…Most precious of icons…
A tear rolling down the cheek of the Magdalene
Did I wrong you…
By taking you one day away from the great shores?
Each day Beirut kills one of us…
Each day it looks for one more victim…
And death is right here in our coffee cups…
In the key to our apartment…
In the flowers of our veranda…
In the pages of the newspaper….
And in the letters of the alphabet…
Here we are once again, Oh Balqis
Entering the Age of Jahiliyyah
The Age of Ignorance
Here we are yet again…
Embarking on savagery and backwardness
On Ugliness and vileness
Here we are again …
Entering the age of barbarism
Where writing is a mad journey
Between burning shreds of shrapnel
And where assassinating a butterfly in her field…
Has become the Cause…

 

[devious_]

The primary, specific tatic used by Hizbullah, Hamas, and Al Queada is terrorism. Period. You strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a bus station, that's terrorism. Period.

And firing a misile at a bus station (or a house) isn't terrorism?

Do you honestly think Palistinians would resort to blowing themselves up if they had an orginized military? They are fighting with what they have and can use. Sure, attacking Israeli civilians isn't really the right way to go, but they're only doing to the Israelis what has been done to them. That is not as much terrorism as it is revenge.

 

[kat]

And firing a misile at a bus station (or a house) isn't terrorism?

If it's intent was to harm civilians then yes, if not then ...no. That's the difference.

 

[Bilal]

QUOTE=Gonzolo]((Americans basically translate "Jihad" to "Holy war", which is, as far as I'm concerned a contradiction in terms with no credibility, it makes no sense. Nothing "holy" is associated with violence according to the other religions I'm familiar with. It may not be the best translation, but it is the one that runs around.))

Real meaning of Jihad:

From language :

Jihad come from the verb ‘Ja- ha- da’ which means struggle... it is exist thousands of years before Islam. It refer to any job need from you a lot of energy and effort to do …

From Social meaning:

It is refer to any great job you doing, for example: he is doing ‘’jihad’’ by his studies … it means he continuing his studies, in spite of he has limited means or limited financial support to do this noble job.

Of course for rich people or those who can easily continue their studies, we can not call that ‘’Jihad for knowledge”.

Islamic/politics:
Jihad has many types:

The noble Jihad is against yourself .. this means to prevent yourself from doing evil is called the most noble Jihad

The greatest Jihad is against your ‘’evil leader’’ or against the aggressor by telling the truth , even if it cause your death. For example, if you tell your ‘’bad leader’’ , you are bad! This means you doing the greatest Jihad …

Other types of Jihad … Jihad for getting knowledge, Jihad to protect your family, your money, your homeland, the poor people, you country ….

I wish you see the big difference between the real meanings of Jihad and how the American/western translate it!


if all Muslim/Arabs do recognize that a (Holy) "War" against America is actually going on (I don't think every Muslims do), then America has quite a right to defend itself in any way it can, and since Islam has no borders, then whether the US goes after Afghanistan, or Iraq or any other countries where Muslims predominate almost becomes irrelevent. Either borders between countries matter, or they don't. The "terrorist" groups seem to think they don't (between the arab countries).

This is far from logic ... just read these facts:

- 23% of the world is Muslims, they are majority in 55 States, they have hundreds of sectors, and they have thousands of schools!
So how you think all these nations could agree in one opinion, or what you called holy war on America for no reason!

Your problem with small group called ((Salafi Jihadi) or what you called it (Wahabi) , this school is exist in small part of Islamic world and they are not popular and accepted by the vast majority of Muslims. Not because they are against USA, but because they are extremists and rejected the rest of Islamic schools (especially Sufi and Shia schools).
Thanks to USA who gave them power in 80s by support them against the Soviet! Otherwise nobody could hear about them!

((The groups I had in mind are exactly those 3 :, Al Quaeda, Hamas, and Hisbullah. ))


Again .. you could not see big differences among these groups:

- ALqaeda is salfi Jihadi school who reject the right of other Muslims schools to exist, they believe that Hizbullah (Shia) are enemy the same as USA!
- Hamas and Hizbulmlah are fighting on their national soil to liberate it from foreign occupation.. they never bomb USA or outside the conflict zone, while ALqaeda do not believe in boundary of conflict and willing to bomb any country who do not agree with (whether Islamic or non Islamic countries). Remember that Alqaeda started attacking the Islamic countries several years before 11/9.
-
I believe there are big differences in ideology and tactics of these organizations.


((What I think most Americans don't agree with and frankly don't even respect much is "sacrify their lives". This crosses the line. I value life more than any principle. If someone suicides, it don't like it, it is sad, and I can manage to feel for that person. But if someone suicides and brings along people who wish to live, how can I possibly approve of that and admire that person? It defeats the purpose of having a principle. Even Hindus who believe in reincarnation don't do that. Those three groups cannot earn respect from the rest of the world if such actions are acceptable to them. No one wants people like that as their neighboor.[/QUOTE]

From Islamic point : Suicide is not accepted ... just some scholars in some places claim that they have no weapons except suicide attacks!

Unfortunately you see the world black and white! As I told you check about unbiased information about these three groups to see how the big difference.

By the way:

Hizbullah is against suicide bombers attacks for religious reasons. Most of Suicide attacks in Lebanon were done by the communist parties or nationalists in 80s. (Sana Mehaidly : first sucide bomber in ME from South of Lebanon and belong to left originations)

In Palestine , 60% of suicide attacks done by secular and nationalist (non religious groups). Even Hamas is the strictest in these attacks, because they do not let girls to do it as other no religious groups doing.

 

[Bilal]

Can you call Qana massacre as ''Israeli terrorism''?

In 1996, Israel bombed a UN camp full by kids and women. They murdered 120 civilians. The UN report found Israel guilty ... so USA kicked out the former UN secretary because he accepted this report.

Murdering is murdering whether by suicide attack or by bomb!

((The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (UNGA Res. A/RES/50/22 C) on April 25, 1996 characterizing Israel's actions during the "Grapes of Wrath" offensive as "grave violations of international laws relating to the protection of civilians during war))

More information about the UN report:

http://hrw.org/reports/1997/isrleb/Isrleb.htm#P54_1377

Well, I could call "coffee" "tea", but that would confuse a lot of people. Definitions are supposed to be constant and consistently applied, otherwise the words truly are meaningless.

Terrorism is a word that terrorists have to attempt to cloud because the objective definition isn't a positive one. Applying the real definition objectively means terrorists truly are evil.

But hey, if you don't like the word, there are plenty of other ones that can describe those people and their actions: murderers, criminals, outlaws, savages, barbarians, evil, etc. Take your pick.

 

[Bilal]

Dear plover,

I already explained the real meaning of Jihad ...

I do not think that Muslims or Arab hate he West ! Even the most extremists parties (e.g. Alqaeda ) believes that peaceful western countries should not be attacked ...

Extremism exist every where, and the popularity of ALqaeda among the Muslims is less than the popularity of the NAZI among the German or the popularity of KKK among the American.

In fact I do not understand why the generalization against all Muslims and Arab ... ignoring the fact that 10% of Arab are no Muslims and 70% of Muslims are not strict Muslims or fundamentalist!

As far as I know, the literal translation of "jihad" is not "holy war" but simply "striving", and as a religious doctrine indicates many kinds of sacrifices that a Muslim may make toward spiritual goals. While I think the specific meaning of ejecting the ungodly from Muslim society has been around since almost the founding of Islam, my impression is also that that has not historically been the most important definition. The terror groups obviously use the word as a spiritual justification for their violence, but how many Muslims accept this justification? Are there non-violent interpretations of what jihad against Western nations might mean? Or do Muslims who are angry about the actions of Western powers in the Middle East, but who would never countenance terrorism use a different concept?

For a long time, European countries used the word "mission" in the sense of "mission to Christianize heathens" as a justification for colonialism. Bush has used the word "crusade" in reference to the current U.S. wars in the Middle East.

All of these ideas have complicated histories, and there is certainly no consensus on how to interpret them.

(I certainly invite Bilal to correct any misinterpretation of "jihad" I have made here.)

 

[EL]

Are you being purposefully obtuse? I won't play the game

My intention is to point out that there is nothing like pure evil. What is good or evil is defined differently by everyone. Agree?

 

[Bilal]

devious , EL and plover

You made many positive points and I highly appreciate that. We are human before we belong to specific religion and nations. Let's to think more logically ...

I am Palestinian who live most of my life under Israeli occupation. I can not tell you how the horror we experience for many years. Our crime is that we born Palestinian! Even before the Palestinian start the military resistance or what other call it ''terrorism'' , the Israeli treated us as sub human . They work by all their force to change the demography and the geography of our country by claiming that ''god give them this land 2000 years ago'', you can not imagine how to live your childhood under such violence and horror of occupation.

During my studies , I had to pass through 3 checkpoints everyday. It is something like the hell: they just enjoy beating and mistreating us. They hit fathers in front of their kids, they slap women and everyday they develop new tactics to harm us. They used to collect all the males from age 14 till 60 in the center of the town to beat all of them and to force them cleaning the streets by their hands.

Extremists Jews settlers are kind of human-beasts.. They just look for any Palestinian to kill him. At night they used to attack our towns , burning our crops destroying water and electrical systems ... they want us to give them our houses and lands and to immigrate!

Only those people who live in the same conditions can understand our suffering.

 

[Bilal]

My eyes were full by tears when I read for the first time this poem in Arabic. Thanks for copying this translation.

The information you collected about Qabbani is correct, he was against all Arab leaders. Even he attacked the well known Egyptian leader (Nasser) in 1969 by poem.

His poem is working better than CNN in USA, because Arabic culture is affected by poem since thousands of years. Beside the fact that Arabic is one of oldest languages on Earth who continue survive and develop itself without interruption. Therefore it is rich by vocabulary and its poem has special musical systems.

In Middle Ages , Arabic poem was stronger than swords ...

I think there should be some clarification about who Qabbani was and why he should be considered in a more positive light then I see him being considered here.
Qabbani had spent most of his life in Lebanon to escape from Hafez Assad (Syrian) Lebanon was for a very long time the "jewel of the middle east" with much freedom in the arts as well as many "western" ideals, fashions and institutions. Many writers of political pieces found refuge in Lebanon at the time. Qabbani was a supporter of Democracy and against dictatorship, although he was bitter about syria losing the war to Israel and was very anti-Israeli.
Also, his wife was not just killed by terrorist, he was killed by Syrian supported forces conveniently called "terrorist" in the Arab world.
His poem written after his second wifes death is haunting and I think portrays his beliefs in a more clarifying manner.
…

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you, guys, for proving my point: you are arguing against a definition. You are arguing that its ok if I do it if someone else is doing it. Like I said before: apply the definition consistently and there is only one conclusion.

This man says he is "with terrorism" - well then he's made it quite clear: he is for the intentional killing of innocent people. He's pro-murder. Pro-crime. Pro-war. Anti-civilization. Anti-peace.

Why? That's what terrorism means!

 

[devious_]

Not all so-called terrorism targets "innocent" people, russ_watters. That's the problem: the generalizations.

 

[Burnsys]

Thank you, guys, for proving my point: you are arguing against a definition. You are arguing that its ok if I do it if someone else is doing it. Like I said before: apply the definition consistently and there is only one conclusion.

This man says he is "with terrorism" - well then he's made it quite clear: he is for the intentional killing of innocent people. He's pro-murder. Pro-crime. Pro-war. Anti-civilization. Anti-peace.

Why? That's what terrorism means!

And that is exactly what your government is...

 

[kat]

mmm just FYI, I believe the actual word used is irhab which would mean "fear" "to fear" "to frighten" I don't have an arabic copy here to look at, perhaps Bilal can clarify.

 

[kat]

QUOTE=Gonzolo]

From Islamic point : Suicide is not accepted ... just some scholars in some places claim that they have no weapons except suicide attacks!

Unfortunately you see the world black and white! As I told you check about unbiased information about these three groups to see how the big difference.

Suicide was origionally a tactical movement but because of it's large success in Lebanon was strategically adopted by islamics after leading shi'ite clerics began to bend their interpretaion of the law sanctioning it.

By the way:

Hizbullah is against suicide bombers attacks for religious reasons. Most of Suicide attacks in Lebanon were done by the communist parties or nationalists in 80s. (Sana Mehaidly : first sucide bomber in ME from South of Lebanon and belong to left originations)

The first suicide bombing in Lebanon was by the Amal organization...who were Shi'ite. Sana was a syrian nationalist and was the third suicide bomber (april, 1985-first suicide by a woman...much celebrated...)...one third of all suicide attacks in Lebanon were committed by Hezzbollah.

 

[Bilal]

So it is terrorism to attack the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon?

**********************************

Sucide bombers started for the first time in 70s by the Tamil tribes in Sri Lanka ...

Suicide was origionally a tactical movement but because of it's large success in Lebanon was strategically adopted by islamics after leading shi'ite clerics began to bend their interpretaion of the law sanctioning it.

The first suicide bombing in Lebanon was by the Amal organization...who were Shi'ite. Sana was a syrian nationalist and was the third suicide bomber (april, 1985-first suicide by a woman...much celebrated...)...one third of all suicide attacks in Lebanon were committed by Hezzbollah.