● Al-Jazeera channel invited me to participate in a programme
called (More than one viewpoint) on the 8/7/2005. The subject of
the programme was (The London bombings) that took place on
7/7/2005. The programme was broadcast live and lasted for 50
minutes. The programme is available in audio and written form on
the Al-Jazeera website: www.aljazeera.net
● I was surprised when two days later I found out that some
elements in the media translated some extracts of the programme
incorrectly and attributed to me words that I did not utter.
Moreover, they misunderstood some of the phrases I used and took
it out of context which is evident of the bad intentions of the
translator.
Below I have given some examples of the inaccuracies in the
translation and the grave errors that were unfairly attributed
to me by the memri.org website, Sunday times, Evening Standard
and others.
(1) The incorrect translation used by the media:
Al-Siba'i: "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic
religious law Dr.Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here,
and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as
'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of
Dar Al-Harb or not.
The translated original text as I said it on al-Jazeera:
Hani al-Sebai: First Mr Sami, there is no term in Islamic
jurisprudence called “civilians.” Dr. Karmi is here sitting with
us, and he’s well familiar with the jurisprudence. There is a
“fighter” and “non-fighters.” Islam is against the killing of
innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.
● Commentary:
The lies in the former translation was that they stated I said
“Dar al-Harb.” In reality I didn’t use either “Dar al-Harb” or
“Dar al-Islam.” These are intentional lies. There is a
difference between those two expressions and the expressions I
used (fighter and non-fighter). My talk is well understood by
scholars and Arabic speakers, who know well that people are
divided into Muslims and non-Muslims. As for non-Muslims, they
are divided into: a) Non-Muslim fighters, b) Non-Muslim
non-fighters. Under no circumstances, the latter should be
killed or attacked; those who do that commit terrible crime,
because they (non-Muslim non-fighters) are innocent beings. The
second expressions is what is described in modern Western
terminology as a “civilian (madani in Arabic).” In Arabic,
madani refers to the person who lives in the cities. Those who
live outside the cities are countryside or desert dwellers. The
term “non-fighter” applies, according to Islamic jurisprudence,
includes city, desert and countryside dwellers. They should not
be attacked or killed. And this is what I wanted to explain. I
was hoping the translator would be familiar with those
jurisprudence terms. But he didn’t and misinterpreted the real
meaning of my talk.
(2) My opinion regarding the killing of innocents in the Islamic
Jurisprudence: I said more than once during the above-mentioned
Al-Jazeera program: “The innocent is innocent according to
Islam, and the killing of an innocent is prohibited in Islam.”
So why didn’t they translate these words? They handpicked what
they wanted to translate. Bad intentions are clearly noticed.
This is an incitement to have me arrested by the British
authorities.
Sunday Times said on 17-7-2005(3)
My words were once again misinterpreted:
“A LONDON-BASED Islamic radical has praised the suicide bomb
attacks on the capital. Hani Al-Siba’i, an Egyptian-born
academic, described the attacks that killed at least 55 people
as “a great victory” that rubbed the noses of G8 countries in
the mud.”
● Commentary:
I was providing different possibilities as to who could have
been behind this incident.
“No possibility should be ruled out. We do not rule out the
possibility that it was done by the intelligence agency of
another Western country hostile to Britain. We do not rule out
countries... or some Zionist Americans who wanted to overshadow
the G-8 summit. But at the same time, we do not rule out the
Al-Qa'ida organization.”
● I clearly stated during the program that if al-Qaeda did
commit this attack then it will claim this as a big victory, but
this is from al-Qaeda’s point of view, not mine. This wasn’t not
my personal view. I was analysing the event and the fallout from
this tragic accident. This is proved by what I said later:
“Hani el-Sebai: I’m not a spokesperson for any group or anything
else.”
“Sami Haddad: OK, you are only analyzing their views.”
This was clearly understood by the program presenter, Sami
Haddad. I was only analyzing their (al-Qaeda’s) views. The
attacks in their views constituted a victory, and they would
have thought they brought the biggest eight countries in the
world to the ground. My talk was in Arabic, and to those who
understood Arabic. If it was in English, it would have taken me
three hours or more to explain every word I say, so as the
English viewers wouldn’t misunderstand it.
● To conclude, I did not praise, or salute the bombers. I
clearly said “The innocent is innocent according to Islam, and
the killing of an innocent is prohibited in Islam.”
Based on the previous points:
1) I demand from Memri website to publish this entire statement,
and correct the errors included in their previous report, and to
publish the script of al-Jazeera program broadcasted on 8 July
2005, without any diversion.
2) The website should publicly apologize for the mistakes it
did, which has instigated a hate campaign against me in some
British publications, as mentioned above.
3) I call on the Sunday Times, Daily Express, Evening Standard,
and others to publish part of the above mentioned interview, to
publish this statement, and to stop their witch hunt against me.
4) I have the right to file a libel lawsuit against the above
mentioned institutions in case they ignore this statement and
refuse to issue an apology.
By
Hani Al Sibai
hanisibu@hotmail.com
18/07/2005 |
