Yesterday, I came across a video on youtube entitled “يعني أيه التيار الرئيسي المصري؟؟”. When I first saw the title, I imagined it would be something produced and executed by anti-protesters who would spin the economy and security yarns. This wasn’t because I thought that these were the views of the “Egyptian mainstream” but because I felt that anyone with the gall to give such a name to a video had to belong to this group.

Instead this is what I got. [Please watch the video before reading the next part of the post. Also, the video is in Arabic.]

I watched the video three times over a period of two hours – so as to give myself a chance of forming a non-hasty opinion of it. My first impressions were such:

1. An amateur professional filmed and edited this video; definite signs of investment of effort into it.
2. Scripted – with some leeway in what they talk about.
3. All the women in the video were veiled.
4. The piano playing throughout the video is kitschy and annoying. Almost like they were talking to us from some sort of heaven.
5. I feel the man who starts speaking at 2:29 is an engineer and perhaps needs to work for the Egyptian authority for bridges and roads or the Ministry of Planning. Also, I have never been attacked by a dog on the street as long as I did not attempt to aggravate the dog in some way or form.
6. Perhaps the video should have been called the Egyptian upper class mainstream. None of these people looked like workers or laborers or technicians of any sort.
7. A lot of Egyptians are sheep and cling strongly to this mentality.
8. I felt they were all “young professionals” who are trying to go about forming a political party in a “scientific” manner; using broad terms to include members of the “silent majority”, university students and fresh graduates to ensure largest number of members.
9. These people will definitely use power points presentations in their meetings and at least half of them will have laptops open and taking notes.
10. It is very patronizing and condescending of them to call this “The Egyptian Mainstream” ( ‘The’ pronounced Zee) and not the The Egyptian Mainstream Movement or something of the sort. They got it the other way round, didn’t they? The mainstream should come first and then you talk about it, you don’t create it. Or, do you? [I realized this inner debate would not end, so I dropped it.]

These are, very seriously, the ideas that ran through my head as I watched the video for the first time. When I showed my mother the video she commented after watching about 3 minutes of it: They cannot rid themselves of the one-party mentality. Then she walked away, dis-interested. Please note that my mother is 100% a-political and though she reads multiple newspapers, she does not like to actively discuss politics for more than a minute at a time.

I also felt that some of them contradicted each other – which shows that they came from different political participation backgrounds. Some insisted that they would shed their differences and at least one or two spoke of including a main set of ideas that would not contradict with pre-existing views or principles. This wasn’t so much an issue though as much as the impression I got that they believed that having differences divides us and makes us weaker an unable to help the country or move forward etc.

If you shift that line of thought, it seems to me that this is exactly the way of thinking – the idea that we should all be homogeneous as a people – that spurs religious tension and strife in the country as well as racial and class prejudices and discrimination.

Also, the video did not state or list a clear set of ideas or principles that they follow or believe in. This does not necessarily make it any “weaker” – it did look like a promotional video – but it made me feel like I wasted 25 minutes of my time listening to a number of people saying that we should all unite and there is strength in numbers as well as ‘we want Tahrir values’ to continue… etc

Right.

Just before I meant to write and publish this post,  I came across this on Facebook (written by a friend of mine – Reem Abu Zahra – also in Arabic). In case Reem hasn’t set her notes to be viewed by the public, below is the text of her note:

التيار الرئيسي” و إحتكار ألهوية المصرية

لا اخفي دهشتي من إعلان ما يسمى ب”التيار الرئيسي” المصري. في بادئ الأمر لم اصدق عيناى و أنا اقرأ العنوان “التيار الرئيسي” و بتعريف اللام… و عند قراءة التفاصيل في كتابات الدكتور معتز عبد الفتاح لا اخفي صدمتي. بصرف النظر عن طبيعة الشخوص التي نصبت نفسها محددة للهوية و حدود و الإطار العام  للشخصية المصرية المعروف معظمهم بميلهم نحو تيار الإسلام السياسي كالدكتور طارق البشرى و حتى معتز عبد الفتاح، إلا أن هذا لا يعنيني بقدر ما تعنيني فكرة محاولة رسم حدود هوية الشخصية المصري كما يراها بعض الأشخاص مهما بلغت درجة العبقرية و التسامح. فمجرد إعلان كهذا في حد ذاته يعنى إنهم ليسوا على استعداد أن يتسامحوا مع قطاعات من الشعب المصري إذا لم يكونوا من “التيار الرئيسي.”

التعريف يعنى أن أى شخصية خارجة عن هذا التيار الرئيسي هو ليس مصريا أو على أقصى تقدير “مصري نص نص” فاقد أو منقوص الهوية و فاقد أو منقوص الأهلية و بالتالي فاقد القدرة على ممارسة مصريته بالكامل. كيف يمارسها و هو “شاذا” عن التيار الرئيسي؟

من أعطى بعض أفراد الشرعية لمهمة كهذه؟ من فوضهم؟ و من يحدد من هو المعتدل اذا كان عبود الزمر نفسه أحد رواد العنف الديني السياسي يرى انه معتدل و غير متطرف الفكر.

مصر لكل الأطياف و الألوان بكل أفكارهم و أشكالهم و توجهاتهم و طباعهم و اهتماماتهم على اختلافها و هذا أجمل ما في مصر. لكل فرد أن يحدد هويته كما يراها و المشترك بيننا جميعا إننا مصريين و علينا احترام بعضنا طالما لم يعتد طرف على حرية طرف آخر بدون عنف و لا استبداد طرف لطرف حتى و ان كانت ديكتاتورية الأغلبية.

ما يفعله “رواد” ما يسمى ب”التيار الرئيسي” هو محاولة لاحتكار الشخصية المصرية و اختطافا لها و هو غير مقبول إطلاقا بل و يرقى لمرتبة الفكر الفاشىا.

مصر لكل المصريين. و الهوية مش بالعافية

(I apologize for any formatting errors that might have occurred – still trying to get the hang of wordpress and multi-language posts)

I will leave it to you to analyze what she’s written and to form your own views about it. Reem has definitely gone much further than I would have in criticizing them – but this is only because (too many headaches!) I had previously decided that this movement wasn’t worth the time or effort (more than a single, quick blog post at any rate).

One of the comments on her note pointed to this declaration (also in Arabic) which they called, very concisely, The Document. Other than the strange fixation with appointing itself the caretaker (through defining anything it does as “The” whatever-the-thing-is), I have no problem with the movement’s document of principles.

I do have a problem with the fact that they really haven’t said or done anything beyond it, although apparently the preparatory meeting to set up the document was 2 days after Mubarak stepped down.

How will I react to this document or anyone who belongs to that movement? I will nod my head at them, tell them I like the document and ask them what’s the plan now.

Because, really? That’s what is important now. It will be at that point that I will probably figure out just how united is this movement in its “unity” and what exact path/ideology/principles they follow.

Al-Masry Al-Youm, the Arabic Egyptian daily paper, ran a front page headline story (English Version) on the Egyptian Minister of Industry and Trade, Rasheed Mohammed Rasheed, and his recent visit to Germany where he commented on the on-going German Companies bribery scandal (an issue that has been occupying front page news in Cairo for sometime).

In remarks he made, the Minister actually said (Al-Masry Al-Youam has this as a direct quote): “The problem is not the presence of corruption, but the taking of a clear position which would deter violators”.

Well, Minister, it’s quite obvious that your methods of deterrance are not working. The country is rife with corruption. It absolutely stinks with the stench of it.

It seems that the poor violators are not connected well enough to escape the wrath of the powers that be now that their little secret has been exposed for all.

According to Al-Masry Al-Youm, the Minister also said that “Corruption is in all countries, and the cases in question are clear evidence of this, in addition to the existence of corruption cases in which big German companies are involved”

I’ve noticed that our government’s new method of deterring any international criticism is by proclaiming that everyone else has whatever problem seems to be discussed as well. When steel magnate, millionaire, Minister and Member of Parliament Ahmed Ezz was interviewed on CNN, he specifically said to Christian Amanpour that Egypt’s Emergency Law was our version of the US PATRIOT ACT which Egypt would do away with as soon as the security situation in the Middle East will allow!  He said it in a tone which clearly implied: don’t you dare accuse us of anything if you have that.

Christian Amanpour’s reaction was (and this is on youtube): Oh my Godness!

So corruption is not the problem, eh Minister?

Found an entry over here which discusses it.

I’ll leave it to you to form your own opinion, but (since they have comment moderation enabled), I will share my very short comment on their post:

“Maybe I’m not getting it… but I’d like to see pictures of Jesus and Moses done in a similar, quite juvenile in my opinion manner, and then I’ll be convinced that this is actually about free speech and not, as it seems to me, confusing free speech with Islamo-phobia.”

The video there was also annoying. Not that I support censorship, I don’t. I think the cartoons should be published… but since, in my experience, most of the blogs and people who supported things like Draw Mohammed Day were conservative right-wing christians or die-hard Islamo-phobes, the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.

I am also proposing an annual lambast Israel for stealing the Palestinians’ land Day and Deny the Holocaust Day. I mean, isn’t Free Speech the whole point, no matter how ridiculous what you say might or might not be?

We need these things then, to get it out of our system, until everyone gets tired of the whole thing and then some of us will just stop being this childish.

… and these three pieces only served to remind me of why:

Power of Grief: Corrie’s fight for justice

Check this bit in the article out:

The IDF says the bulldozing was meant to stop the activities of militants in the area. It adds that the bulldozer driver could not see or hear Corrie and its own investigation found no Israeli soldier was to blame.

Nothing in the article about what other, mutiple, activists saw or observed that day… though there is plenty of published information with their statements. Either the nice reporter didn’t do her homework or she didn’t bother. The rest of the article portrays the human side of the brave activist and how difficult it has been for her parents (something which I’m obviously not disputing)… but I find it difficult to believe that a reporter from a land where all politicians and journalists attack channels like Al Jazeera and accuse them of portraying the story from one side, amongst many other things, could have missed something I noticed in as long as it took me to read the article.

Netanyahu must lead towards peace

A lackluster piece about the recent Israel/America schism (or not, according to the writer) which included these lines:

Only time will tell if what began with a slap in the face over an announcement over one housing development will be seen one day as the wake-up call that forced a moment of truth in the Middle East peace process — and whether Netanyahu had the courage to turn this crisis into an opportunity to achieve real peace and security for Israel.

What? Did you run out of interesting material and so decided to write such a ridiculously naive article where you actually say that any Israeli leader (particularly one who has been voted in a second time… with time in between to reflect on his first term) actually wants peace?!

Also, it’s not just ONE housing development. It was one housing development this time and hundreds more since 1967… but, of course, your readers will nod their heads and say: so what’s wrong with one development? Why is Obama annoyed? What’s wrong with these Arabs?!

Netanyahu, Obama meet at White House

What about these lines?

President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met for more than three hours Tuesday evening amid a dispute over Israel’s decision to build new Jewish housing on disputed land in East Jerusalem.

and this

Netanyahu’s visit to Washington comes as Israel and the United States find themselves at odds over Israel’s plan to build new housing on disputed land in East Jerusalem — a plan he defended sharply Monday night. Israel’s announcement two weeks ago that it plans to build 1,600 apartments in an area claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians

and this

Palestinian leaders have refused to rejoin peace talks until Israel freezes the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But Netanyahu said “everyone knows” the neighborhoods where the new housing units will be built “will be part of Israel in any peace settlement,” and the new construction “in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution.”

FYI, my western readers, East Jerusalem is not disputed land. It was captured illegally during war. If you think it wasn’t captured illegally and think that Israel gets to pick and choose what statutes and decisions that are binding, by International Law that Israel has agreed to, then I think that all suicide bombers, the rocker launchers and militants are totally within their rights to do what they’ve been doing for years.

Mr. Ben-Ami, who wrote the second article mentioned here, should have probably read this last piece before his piece was posted on the CNN website. I think there’s your answer Jeremy. Netanyahu said pass on the peace. Why? Because apparently not “everyone knows” that East Jerusalem has been theoretically annexed to Israel (though on the ground, that is the de facto state of things).

Moving on to this piece.

The writers says that

Despite the toe-to-toe standoff with the United States, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had dinner with Biden in Washington and met President Barack Obama, though he fiercely reiterated Israel’s right to build on land claimed by the Palestinians while he was in the United States.

Notice how Netanyahu’s quote is not preceded or followed by quotation marks? That means our writer was probably paraphrasing… was it Netanyahu that explicitly added the bit about the land being claimed by Palestinians? Or, was it the writer’s own little expenditure of effort and willingness to be daring and sound just like a lawyer when using the word “claimed”.

Let me just help the man out: it’s not claimed, fool. It’s the Palestinians’ right as per the law. The same law that allowed the people that call themselves Israeli now to “claim” that they had any right to this piece of land in the first place.

I think Egypt, Italy and Greece should claim Palestine too… after all, the Ancient Egyptians (preceding Judaism), the Romans and the Greeks once ruled this land as well… for hundreds of years. Hell, maybe we can have France and England claim it… remember the crusades?

CNN… ridiculous!

A friend on facebook recently posted a link to this article (Note: Article is in Arabic and thus my response will be longer than if it had been in English since I will have to translate/para-translate certain passages that I wish to criticize) which I thought was one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

The article itself is posted on a Nasserist/Pan-Arabist forum (as the forum itself claims).

Upon reading the article, I found myself extremely annoyed, for a number of reasons:

1. The distasteful tone the man used
2. The lack of article cohesion
3. The manner in which he assumes certain opinions are facts
4. The way in which he (as with most, but not all, Nasserists) can’t see the world beyond his beliefs.

The author, Amr Sabih Sayyid, starts off by saying that Dr. Mohammed Elbaradei claims that his father, who headed the lawyer’s syndicate during some of the years of Gamal Abdel Nasser, was ill-treated and discriminated against [by the regime] at the time.

The man says that Elbaradei over-stepped his bounds by calling Abdel Nasser a tyrant as well as criticizing the free-education system of the time.

Mr. Sayyid then goes on to say that an Egyptian intellectual had contacted a journalist in Al Dostour (The Constitution) newspaper and angrily criticized Elbaradei since, the intellectual claimed, Elbaradei’s father was actually pampered by the Egyptian state and that Mohammed Elbaradei must have ulterior motives for criticizing Abdel Nasser in this fashion…

… and then he moves on to another point as if by stating the intellectual’s name and his criticism of Elbaradei, we should all agree that Elbaradei was mistaken. I don’t know this intellectual (through no one else’s fault but my own) but I believe that even if I did, I would still expect to hear the actual proof of why Elbaradei’s claim is false and not just someone saying that it was!

Furthermore, the word tyrant, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary means:

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

Abdel Nasser was definitely an absolute ruler who governed without restrictions. He was also oppressive: what else would you call a man who abolished all political parties in Egypt (save his own) for what was claimed to be the good of the country. I’ve heard it said that the Arabic expression which translates to “behind the sun” (commonly used to mean disappear) was coined during Abdel Nasser’s era. Either way, it is well known that there were many, many political prisoners during Nasser’s rule… some of whom were never seen nor heard of after they were jailed. I would say that this is  clear and obvious cruelty and harshness (not to mention oppressive).

The author also calls Elbaradei politically stupid for insisting to group all presidential regimes from 1952 to this day under one label and because “most Egyptians and Arabs (I want to know why we should give a **** about the Arabs when it comes to the next Egyptian presidential elections) are angered by an attack on Abdel Nasser and his regime”. So I guess just because you seem to adore Nasser, everyone else has to as well? We can’t think: well, you know what? I think Nasser, Sadat AND Mubarak are all inept rulers that have caused more harm than good to this country.

For good measure, and to complete the rhetoric (though admittedly, I have used similar phrases before) Mr. Sayyid tells us that Nasser’s image (the image of the “greatest Arab leader in History”) will not be tarnished and his worth not diminished through the use of hollow and used-up adjectives like “Tyrant”.

Mr. Sayyid is obviously not the smartest apple in the barrel (in addition to being ridiculously dogmatic).

I think that people would hail Elbaradei as the world’s (not just Egypt or the Arab world’s) greatest hero if their average income increased and they lived a more decent, oppression free life and he was the one to give them that. This would be particularly true considering the state of affairs of most Egyptians these days.

Next up in the article is Mr. Sayyid’s masterpiece. His opus. His crowning achievement. His master thesis (to end all arguments, it seems). In short, this is where Mr. Sayyid offers us his astute and revelation-ary… analysis. Mr Sayyid says that it is “known” that criticizing Nasser pleases: The United States, Israel, the current ruling regime in Egypt, all the arab compradore/agent regimes, the Muslim Brotherhood, business men and beneficiaries of the ruling regime in Egypt since 1974.

He then goes on a wild tangent (I wouldn’t even call it a tangent since, by definition, tangent lines intersect at only one point) explaining how Elbaradei would be mistaken if he is trying to “please” or “flirt with” these people since they are doomed to fail. The author goes on to lambast these groups and basically explains to the reader how courting these groups will get Elbaradei no where as they don’t need him to plunder, steal and ruin the country.

Mr. Sayyid, after finding no rational explanation for Elbaradei’s criticism goes on to explain that it might be his wafdist leanings but, alas dear reader, Mr. Sayyid fires a full criticism salvo at them as well (and does not forget to mention how Abdel Nasser rescued Egypt from their mistakes).

In an unexpected epiphany and moment of clear vision, Mr. Sayyid says that this could be because of Elbaradei’s own personal views (ya think?!) and that he, Elbaradei, is free to express his views (Im not sure Mr. Sayyid has left anything for Elbaradei to express after covering all possible avenues of thought the way he did) but without making false allegations about the “era of the tyrant” (I think he was trying to be sarcastic).

Mr. Sayyid goes on to say that perhaps Dr. Elbaradei should learn from Nasser’s experience. He then goes on to give a heart-wrenching (now I’m being sarcastic) albeit short piece about Nasser history (managing to make him sound every bit the hero, the man of courage, knowledge and learning, the British-fighting freedom fighter as well as the humble achiever who never boasted of his accomplishments but brought his revolution (doesn’t he mean military coup?) to rid Egypt of all its ailments.

The man says that Nasser did not inherit Egypt’s rule from anyone and did not beg its people for their support (of course not, he forced himself on them!) before his achievements. Nasser, according to our (at this point) impassioned author did not look for a revolution to lead but “exploded” his own revolution… he was a man whose achievements made him popular and nothing else.

Finally, the man goes on to talk about a Nasserist politician, Hamdeen Sabahy, but not before managing to slip in this bit: Imported solutions will not improve Egypt’s situation… etc etc bullshit bullshit.

I have this much to say to all Nasserists who think along Mr. Sayyid’s lines of thought (actually, one line… he can’t, as again with most Nasserists, seem to be able to let go of that one line): If you want to feel proud like you say Nasser made Arabs and Egyptians feel, if you want to banish the oppressing invader and throw off the yoke of servitude you believe you’re being forced to wear by the western infidels… then do something for your country instead of writing cute little articles in ridiculous forums where the only useful thing you’re doing is practicing your creative writing.

Instead of waiting for a savior (preferably a pan-arab, socialist, oppressive, bureaucracy-supporting one) to come and free you from the quagmire you feel you’re stuck in, do something useful for your country.

Idiot.

There are times when people use the exact wrong words to express themselves. An example of this is this post by Egyptian-Australian blogger Neferteeti.

So the Egyptian government, or administrative court according to an article she cited in her post, passed another decision which reflects the general religious intolerance of the government towards non-Muslims. Why then would Neferteeti blame Islam, as a religion, for this?

She says:

Ever considered becoming a Muslim? Think carefully! Because it’s a strictly one way road… moreover, if you live in Egypt, the blessed government and even the juidiciary system will enforce this rule

And

and tell me, why is Islam so scared to let people choose? Why is the governemnt so determined to keep religion in the forefront of the average Egyptian’s life?

It is a well known fact that religious scholars of all religions, including both the Christianity and Judaism, have differed over a variety of topics and issues ever since all these religions sprang into being. Christians frequently tell me that the difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christianity is a religion of peace.

I will choose not to question that last statement, BUT do you mean to tell me that the Crusades were written somewhere in Christianity? Or that the Catholic Pope and other rulers and leaders at the time took the decision to carry out expeditions in the name of The Lord? If one was to blame anyone, would it be them or Christianity?

Do we blame Christianity, or the Aryan race, for Hitler’s mass murder of European Jews? Or do we blame one man, Hitler himself, for the actions taken by members of the Nazi party and the army of the Third Reich?

I should think the answers to the question would be: The men themselves (and not Christianity) as well as Hitler (and not Christianity nor the Aryan race).

It does not require a religious scholar nor a person of astounding knowledge to realize that the application of the different supposed rules of different religions are carried out differently from region to region and country to country. Compare Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Morrocco, Turkey and Egypt, if you need facts.

If you know all this, and I will suppose that you must have missed this in your anger over the decision, why do you blame the religion? Blame the government. Blame the administrative court judges. Blame Gomaa. But how could you blame a faith and a belief?

This is particularly true when the article Neferteeti cited has this particular bit:

“As a Muslim, I say that there is no limit to the freedom of religion and, without it, heaven and hell would be … meaningless as the Koran assures the individual freedom of belief and disbelief [and] in return [people] are responsible for their choice,” Mohammed Munir Mogahed, a founding member of Egyptians Against Religious Segregation, said recently in the Egyptian daily, Al Masry Al Youm.

The man, who stands with you in your anger and objections, makes the situation clear enough. If you disagree with this, what’s up with including this article in your post and asking your readers to check it out for more information?

I’ve learnt that the path to religious tolerance lies in carefully thinking through all the things we hear and understanding how those different from us, in matters of faith or belief, think. The Egyptian government, may it burn, does not seem to be doing this.

Why is it that some of us, rightful in our objections, are emulating their modus operandi?

A friend of mine, Yasmine Adel, wrote this and I thought it was definitely worth publishing:

My hand didn’t touch his as I handed him the money.
He thanked me and turned around.
He didn’t notice that I saw him do it.
Saw him kissing the money before putting it into the pocket of his waiter’s shirt.
He thanked the Lord for 50 peanut pounds.
Those 50 pounds were worth two very long days of work.
He had to serve sandwiches and coffee twice, once at 11am and then at 1 pm.
He stood in that dull meeting room next to the coffee table from 9 am to 4 pm for two days waiting to be a waiter and serve tea to important men and women wearing suits and speaking in English. Some were blond and looked funny. Still he felt proud that the UN always calls him for catering and serving.
Their faces seem so serious in meetings as they talk about money, global funds, and internal politics.
People who talk about millions of dollars given away from pamphlets to be translated to Arabic about poverty in the world.
Ahmed Sabry from the Marriott Bakery…you broke my heart today…and made me hate what I do even more. Your job is more noble than mine, simply because it doesn’t have the pretense of world salvation!

Yasmine Adel

So I was searching The Daily Star‘s (Egypt) website for some trivial tid-bit when I came across this article in the Opinions & Editorials Section.

The author’s name caught my eye for some reason I didn’t comprehend. After a bit (20 minutes) of racking my memory, I thought that she might have been someone I mentioned before on “The way I see it”.

Searching through my archives (relatively painless because of their limited size), I found the post where I had referred to her before. Another Daily Star article. Except that it was Daily Star Lebanon.

Concise and succinct, this article should shed some light on a phenomenon that has been under discussion for a couple of years now.

Today is the fourth day of the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan.

During the Month of Ramadan, for the uniniated amongst you, Muslims are supposed to Fast (refrain from eating/drinking) from dawn until sunset. Having being raised a Muslim, I have always been told that Ramadan is not only about Fasting from food and drink but vices in general.

For Muslims, Ramadan is a time of spirituality. (Yeah, right… but I’ll get to that later).

Today, I am not Fasting. I’m not doing this to make a statement or prove a point (though I have to admit that since I’m a Quasi-Agnostic – still in transition – the social pressure on me to fast is just too great, and I know I’ll get a bitch of a headache if I go around explaining and arguing).

No, I’m not fasting because I’m ill and I’m taking medication. Religion-wise, I’m safe. SupraNatural being knows my body feels like it’s about to crumble to pieces and the anti-biotics and painkillers I’m gulping down every six hours don’t contribute to my regaining my body strength or even presence of mind.

I let it be known that I am not fasting today at the office. I had to. I needed to eat and drink so as not to collapse from the exhaustion my body feels. I did not have except two cigarettes, a cup of tea and two pieces of toast (though in 30 minutes when all the Egyptians are gone I will go down and buy me some McDonalds). Still, when I was about to leave the office (to have my second smoke in the building stairwell), the Security Guy (of “The Jews” fame) asked me how I was dealing with Ramadan today (his shift had just started – he didn’t know).

Obviously, I told him I wasn’t fasting… because I was ill. He gave me this look and said:

“Ana mesh mesada2 ennak mesh sayem. Mesh Faisal el maysomsh.” [Trans: I cannot believe that you are not Fasting.It would not have been expected of Faisal (me) not to Fast.]
Damn!

Why’d he have to go and say something like that? What really annoyed me was my response… I actually stood there and attempted to explain to the man why I wasn’t fasting. I gave him excuses! (I felt extremely ashamed of my behaviour afterwards).

The look on his face said that he still wasn’t satisfied with my response. Thing is, this is the attitude that many people give you when you do not fast. Apparently, nothing short of having Cancer, a Stomach Ulcer, Diabetes, Heart Problems AND a bullet lodged inside your brain should be reasons enough for one not to fast. Yes indeed.

One has to persevere. So what if you are ill?! You have to vanquish the illness through piety… and possibly die in the process (I’m not saying I was going to die).

I do not want to waste my breath ranting on about how I think these people should mind their own business and not interfere. After all, it’s their SupraNatural Being who will judge me, not they. So let’s just wait until Judgement Day and I’ll let them know what I scored on the Ramadan part of my Grades.

Apparently the man was accepting enough to point out that if I smoke my ciggy in the bathroom, and with the stall door closed and the fan on, it would me much better for me.

So I smoked in the bathroom, well aware of his attempts to “hide and protect me” from the wrath of other Muslims who might be traversing the building stairwell, and who would absolutely faint at the sight of a non-Faster.