THE SOCIETY FOR THE MUSLIM BROTHERS
January 31, 2012 - CONTINUED

Chapter V relates to the dissolution of the Society by the Egyptian Military Council, and so ends
part I of this historical account. The events leading up to the demise of the Society merit our attention because they were to determine future events.

At the end of 1953 and 1954, the secret apparatus of the Ikhwan was dissolved to make for one devoid of terrorism. If this was meant to appease the Free Officers, it had the opposite effect.

The Revolutionary Council dissolved the Ikhwan in 1954 and threw 117 of them, including Hudayby in jail. Abdel Moneim Abdel Raouf, who had escaped from prison, began plotting the death of Nasser, while in concealment. He became the head of the secret apparatus and was to play an important role in its organization in the coming years.

There are very striking parallels between the events of the 50's and those that followed in subsequent decades, such as the assassination of Sadat. It was Raouf's idea to penetrate the army by clothing members of the cells in army uniforms. This is how Sadat was killed. Another idea that Abdel Raouf had, which corresponds with the techniques of the Islamists today, is the suicide belt. Abdel Raouf devised the notion that a member of the cell would take out Nasser by wearing a dynamite belt. Further, Mitchell writes: "the most widely accepted idea was that of the popular demonstration." The idea was to spark off the people's revolt, thus the revolutionary government would be replaced by one headed by Naguib (Nasser's opponent in the army). This happened on February 15th when Mubarak was replaced by Tantawi, in the Arab Spring of 2011.

The reason for wanting to assassinate Nasser was that he had signed an unfavorable treaty with the British. Sadat was assassinated because of the peace treaty he signed in 1979 with Israel, which was also considered "unfavorable." Mubarak was brought down by a popular demonstration. As for Nasser, the plot to kill him failed.

There is a vivid account in Mitchell's history of the assassination of Nasser on October 26, 1954. Eight shots were fired from the crowd and missed. Hudayby was arrested and sentenced to life in prison; six of the Brothers were hung in December, 1954, and 1,000 were jailed.

Who gave the order to kill Nasser was never made clear by the trials (Mitchell, p. 158). In the trial against Mubarak, which is taking place now, the defense is making the same point. It is difficult to establish who gave the order to shoot the demonstrators in Tahrir Square in February, 2012. The government, in 1954, was aware, however, that there were cells within the armed forces of Muslim Brothers.

Before we leave Part I of this account, it is noteworthy that Mitchell brings up the name of Sayid Qotb, who according to western writers, is the founder or philosopher of Al-Qaeda (see Paul Berman's article, "Al-Qaeda's Philosopher," March 23, 2003, p. 24).

Qotb was the head of the propaganda sectionof the Brotherhood and the editor of the newspaper published by the Ikhwan (Mitchell, p. 141). He is identified by Mitchell as the liaison between the Brotherhood and the Egyptian Communist Party, which also plotted to kill Abdel Nasser.

The stated philosophy of the Muslim Brotherhood at that time, and to this day, is stated by their leader, Hassan al-Hudayby, "We Muslim Brothers do not recognize geographical boundaries in Islam. Our concern is with the welfare of Islam, and we will engage in its defense; in battle which includes the Muslim world in its entirety. For example, it may not be in the interest of Islam that a battle should begin in the Canal (the Suez Canal, which was operated by the British until 1956) but rather . . . in Tunis first. . . . We have our plans, our goals, and our independent commands which address themselves to this spacious field. It is not necessary that their vision should be bound by local problems in Egypt."

Prophetic words? Indeed. Nonetheless, as discussed by Mitchell, the Ikhwan was a political party, with an Islamist agenda. The notion that Islamist ideology sprung overnight, before and after 9/​11, is unfounded. The Muslim Brotherhood sprung up in Egypt, as a political movement, which organized itself not only on an Islamist agenda but more importantly on an agenda of anti-British sentiment and a belief that the flagrant social injustices of Egyptian society could be corrected by a return to Koranic principles.

In Part II of the book, the political structure of the Muslim Brotherhood is laid out extensively in Chapter 6, the "Structure and Administration" of the Ikhwan, the Hierarchy" and the "Technical Apparatus" which shows how well organized the party was and is. For instance, he describes "six committees and ten sections (Ligan). The "aqsam" or sections were concerned with "indoctrination". The Labor and Peasant section or qism, was to inspire workers to organize along trade unions, to study rural exploitation, to improve the health and wellbeing of the peasant and labor classes and so on and so forth.

The section on the "Professions" was subdivided into committees for doctors, engineers, teachers, journalists, etc. Over the past decades, it is well known that the medical syndicate of Cairo produced the leaders of the Muslim societies, and it is not surprising that Hamas' leaders all came from the "professions" . . . THERE WAS EVEN A SECTION FOR BODILY TRAINING (al tarbiya al badaniya) and for finances.

The chapter ends with a brief analysis of the concept of jihad in the formation of the Ikhwan. To Mitchell, it was this that made the organization different from all other parties in Egypt. According to Hassan al-Banna, the Koran extols the believers to love death above life. "By fighting and dying in the name of Islam, in the Canal Zone, in Palestine or on the gallows in Egypt, the Brother was sure that his "noble death" had elevated him to the rank of the pious heroes of Islam."

Mitchell's quotation came from an Arabic manuscript (see p. 208).

I know of very few scholars who have read the memoirs of Hassan al-Banna. Mitchell has. In the chapter entitled "The Problem", the idealogy of political Islam is explained. Clearly, the founder of the Ikhwan did not approve of the west or western institutions. The British had introduced a parliament in 1923. But as we so often hear today in al-Jazeera-Egypt never had a parliament before the present one. They, the Islamists, for want of a better word, regard all parliamentary life since 1923 as "spurious." This was internal imperialism. External imperialism took the form of Zionism and the United States' support of the establishment of the Zionist state.

What is the solution?

The solution is the creation of an Islamic order (nizam islami) and Mitchell hastens to point out as he is about to show, his analysis does not believe that the "Society was a fanatic or reactionary movement, dedicated to recreating a 7th century political" order, but rather that, according to his sources (Banna and Hudayby), the Brothers would accept the existing parliamentary" framework in Egypt, "which if reformed would satisfy the political requirements of Islam for a Muslim state" (see p. 235).

This brings us back to the opening point of this review, and back to the threshold of the opening of the post "revolutionary parliament" of January 2912, to the new speaker, an Islamist or a Brother, whichever way you look at it, poised for reform.

The final chapter of this work deals with the "Solution" as perceived by the Society. That (solution) lies in "Action" and "Reform".

Therefore, the Islamic state or an Islamic order, is a work in progress. Let there be no misunderstanding about what an Islamic state will be. According to Sayid Qotb (the "terrorist" described in the New York Times article) who Mitchell takes very seriously, there is no such thing as separation of "religion" from the "state". "The word Islam was not synonymous with religion. Rather, "Islam" was a word including in its total meaning religion, politics, society, etc." Both dawla and din are expressions of Islam (see Mitchell, p. 243).

One final comment about methodology. Mitchell relies heavily on primary sources, in other words, on the Arabic sources, whether books or articles, or pamphlets; he uses them all for his material. There are 30 books in Arabic (from that period) in his bibliography, and twice as many Western works.

THE SOCIETY FOR THE MUSLIM BROTHERS
January 27, 2012

On January 23rd the Lower House of the Egyptian Parliament convened in Cairo, for the first time. It was now, one year since the January 25th revolution. The elected speaker of the House was member of the Muslim Brotherhood, or the party of Freedom and Justice, which has won the most seats.

Kaktani began his words with a prayer - not included in the taking of the oath to protect the Egyptian constitution. Already things were changing. I think it is time to ask the question Who is the new speaker, and what are the aims of the now famous Muslim Brotherhood and their rise to power?

"We are Brothers in the service of Islam: hence we are the Muslim Brothers," were the words spoken at the founding of the group in 1928 in Ismailiya, by its leader, Hasan al Banna.

Al Banna was a school teacher, who had been assigned a post teaching in the Suez Canal town, a community run entirely by the British to administer the Suez Canal, which was in those days owned and controlled by the British and the French.

"Here" according to Richard Mitchell in The Society for the Muslim Brothers (Oxford University Press, 1969) "were not only the British military camps, but equally hateful to Banna, the Suez Canal company, complete foreign domination of the public utilities, and the conspicuously luxurious homes of the foreigners overlooking the miserable homes of their (Egyptian) workers."

By the outbreak of the Second World War, Alikhwan (Arabic name for the Brotherhood), had become one of the most important "political contestants" on the Egyptian scene. Its "membership became so diversified" as to be "virtually representative of every group in Egyptian society."

By the 10th anniversary of the movement, the Society had produced a set of ideas, which can be summarized as follows: 1) "Islam is a total system complete unto itself" and the final arbiter of life in all categories." Islam formulated from and based on two basic categories, "the revelation of the Koran and "the wisdom of the Prophet and the Sunna."

2. The Muslim Brothers, according to Mitchell, were strengthened by the events of World War II and by the situation in Palestine, especially "the disturbances between Zionists and Arab Nationalism and the British," all provided the opportunity for political activism rather than just "propaganda". This took the form of collecting money for the Palestinians. More importantly, Mitchell describes the rise to power of the Ikhwan during World War II, because of their close association with certain members of the army (such as the commander Abdel Aziz al Masri), who also had anti-British sentiments. Thus, in 1940, Banna was even asked to mediate a peace between the army (under King Farouk) and a rebellious group who called themselves the "Free Officers." His contact was no other than Anwar al Sadat. This relationship continued for two years, and in my opinion, shows the beginning of the link between the army officers who were later to rule Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sadat was imprisoned in August 1942 for his "continued contact with German agents." His replacement from the army of "malcontents" was another officer, Abdelk Moneim Abdel Raouf, who had actually become a full member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Abdel Raouf played an important part in the toppling of the regime of King Farouk and the bringing into power of the 1952 revolution by the Free Officers, which still rules Egypt to this day.

"One other point is of importance here," writes Mitchell (pp. 26-27), "Sadat in the course of his meetings with Banna had been overjoyed to see that the latter had already started to "collect arms, and just before his arrest in August. Sadat had a final meeting with Banna during which he told all that he could about the army group (the Free Officers) and its operation."

Ironically, maybe one of the greatest ironies - Sadat himself much later, in October 1981, was assassinated by an officer in the army with membership in a society which was an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

However, friction with the existing authority, the Palace, caused the Society in 1942 to institute a "secret apparatus." In addition to this, the society began to formulate cells of five for the purpose of indoctrination.

Moreover, the Brotherhood was organized almost constitutionally by a "theoretical delegation of power among the following: the General guide (al murshid al amm), an advisory General Guidance Council (maktab al irshad al amm), and a Consultative Assembly. All of this presented to the government for its approval. The ministry in charge (Ministry of Social Affairs) agreed to give aid to the "charity" work of the Brotherhood, thus the Brotherhood became protected by the Social Affairs Ministry, as social welfare organizations were. This legitimacy gave the organization an upsurge in membership, welfare activity was "supplemented" by social work and medical work in the form of hospitals and clinics. And all this exists to this very day.

After the end of WW II, the Brotherhood put its sights on the struggle for Palestine. They organized into battalions, which went into Palestine in guerilla warfare operations. The Arab League condoned this action by arming and training any volunteers who would go to Palestine. However, in 1948 the Brotherhood was dissolved by the government of King Farouk, which had come to the conclusion that a stream of violence and political assassinations, which included that of Salim Zaki, head of the police, and Nuqrashi Pasha, the prime minister, should be attributed to the "Secret apparatus" of the Ikhwan.

One is not sure what opinion, if any, Mitchell holds in this matter. However, he does sympathize to an extent with Banna, who was murdered in cold blood by the "political police" in February 1949. The Ikhwan were banned and their property confiscated. The prosecution brought a case against them, but it was largely lost and in 1951 the party was reinstated by judicial decree.

By the time the party was reinstated, in his account, the sympathies of the writer are clear. We follow the ups-and-downs of this organization, as if they were the adventurers of a hero in an 18th century novel. So far, nothing evil or sinister has been attributed to the Society. It is a devout organization, with intentions which are both spiritual and patriotic.

On Jnauary 25, 1951, an important day since it also marks the start of the revolution of 2011, over 40 policemen were killed by a British operation or "assault" in the Canal district. In response, on January 26, 1952 the "heart of modern and westernized Cairo was left a charred ruin." (Mitchell .92). It is interesting to note that although the leader Hudayby was arrested and then released, the Muslim Brotherhood refused to take part in parliamentary elections of May of that year, because they did not wish to be in a society as "corupted" as was Egypt.

Thus far, in this very scholarly account, Mitchell has gone to great pains to show how the paths of the Egyptian revolution, or Free Officers Movement, was inspired by the challenge to authority along Islamic principles of the Brotherhood.

Moreover, he describes the events which led to the participation of the Brotherhood in the 1952 coup. He even goes so far as to write that there was a tacit agreement between the army and the Muslim Brotherhood to ensure the success of the coup by allowing them to establish a "network of intelligence" and to "fill the streets to ensure" immediate popular acceptance." (See p. 103 Mitchell).

To be continued.

January l9.20l2. Trouble in Gaza.

While the Arab world is in the throes of revolution,and chaos,the Israelis ,are bombing Gaza and its civilian population once more.The world seems to have forgotten what continues to be a humanitarian situation in Gaza.Meanwhile,the violence against the beseiged people of this strip of Palestinian land,continues on a day to day basis,as does the building of settlements in the west Bank.

The so-called talks between the Israelis and the Arabs,under the auspices of the quartet,are coming to an unresolved conclusion in Aman.

Syria,whichwas ,and still is,a staunch supporter of the cause of the Palestinian people,has been weakened,by civil strife.So has Egypt,whise economy is now,almost at a standstill.

What happened to the Arab" Spring".

Women Protest Police Violence in Cairo, Dec. 22, 2011

Remembering Jihane al Sadat.

The media, especially PBS, has focused on the protests by women against the violent attack by the riot police. One woman in particular was beaten. This was shown on CNN.

In 1919 women protested in a massive rally against the British occupation of Egypt. One must ask, when will Egyptian women protest against the laws that enslave us? For instance, polygamy, arbitrary divorce, child custody (which entitles a man to his children when they become teens) and domestic violence (which is condoned by the Koran, inadvertently).

The Egyptian revolution, which is being maligned in the Western press and which is represented by the army, gave women the right to vote in 1956.

Nasser issued a decree baning female circumcision in the 60's and in the 70's Mrs. Sadat introduced a law which challenged polygamy. Briefly, the law, which was passed by the parliament, stipulated that a man should notify his wife, if he decides to take a second wife. This would give the first wife the chance to find an alternative home or opt to remain in her own house.

This law was canceled after Sadat's assination because of the outrage it created in Islamist circles.

In brief, Egyptian women will never challenge the laws of Sharia, but they will go out and protest against the army or police, because it is not forbidden by religious law.
A HISTORICAL INTERVIEW WITH DR. NABIL AL-'ARABI - HEAD OF THE ARAB LEAGUE.

Let Us Save Egypt.

These were some of the last words spoken by the departing prime minister,Issam Sharaf.During the past five days,and up to now,the cities of Cairo are in rage.Demonstrators have once more,occupied Tahrir Square.They are asking for the resignation of the Supreme Military Council,as a governing,or interim government.That council,headed by Hasssan al Tantawi,an old general who commanded the forces in the victory over Israel in l973-had appointed a civilian government under the tutelage of Issam Sharaf,

Unable to appease the angry and violent rioters,this civilian government has now resigned,and the crisis,has been delegated to the constitutional courts.On Monday,the parliamentary elections are supposed to take place.To-day,Wednesday,November 23rd.20ll-nothing seems more remote than the actual occurunce of this event,
Meanwhile,the violence and anarchy continues.

The Rafah Crossing Revisited.


The rafah Crossing,which is the barrier that seperates Egypt from Gaza,has always been closed.With the demise of Mubarak,it was re-opened.That military cross section,has alwyas been the place for anguish and frustration.Even,after the fall of Mubarak.But in the middle of october it became the scene of jubilation,as almost six hundred prisoners were brought from Israel to Egypt and prepared to enter Palestine,through the crossing.This event was enaled by the release of Gilad Shalit by Hamas.For once,in many years,both sides celebrated and wept-in joy.

But recently,the situation Has changed again.The two ships bearing badly needed medical supplies for gaza,were ambushed by Israel.And,the Australian passengers,thrown into jail.On November l7,Ehud Barak,admitted on Charlie Rose,that as he spoke,there were punitive attacks by Israel,in other words,air strikes,om strategic sites in Gaza.This,ina town,where there is no military presence...in that same interview,Barak admitted,that the Israeli embassy in Cairo,which had been stormed in September,by protestors,was intact,to-day,becuase of the phone calls he made,to Panetta,to intervene.

This is the kind of information that is not ready made for the Egyptian public.What would they think,if they knew,that the United States,stepped in to save the Israeli embassy,from their protestors?

The Jasmin Revolution-after the jasmin.Yesterday,October 25,it was announced,that al Nahda,an Islamic party had,for all intents and purposes,won the parliamentary elections.Its leader al Genoushi had returned.Tunisia,the most secular and westernized of all Arab countries,now faces a challenge.Will it become an Islamic state?Or will it remain a secular society?Will the secular forces,prevail?Will a coalition government be formed?

Only,last January,Tunisia,was ruled by a secular dictator,Ben Ali.Things moved along,as usual,until,on January 20.20ll,an incident occurred,which lit that country on fire-literally.A University graduate,Mohammed Bouaziz,was peddlng his fruits in his town,when a policewoman,kicked the cart,because of some zoning problem?He felt so humiliated,this was the only work he coul find-that he lit himself on fire,and,died.

Demonstrations spread,all over the country-Zein al Abidine Ben Ali,was asked to resign by angry masses,and fearing for his safety in Tunis,he fled on a private plane,He was replaced by an interim government.

At that time,almost on thatdate,an economic conference,was taking place in Sharm al Sheikh.Al Jazeera showed the conference,as well as the reaction of the Egyptian President,Hosni Mubarak,to the news thar Ben Ali had been overturned.Mubarak remained impervious.
But,Amr Mussa,then head of the Arab League,told al Jazeera:" Everything will change now."

The Slaughter of Qaddafi in Libya.
October 26.20ll.During the past week,we have witnessed,both in the American media,and in al-Jazeera-the graphic footage of the torture and beating of Qaddafi,by rebel forces.An investigation is being conducted by the United Nations,on how exactly,he was executed,if that is the right term.In two weeks time,it will be the Feast of al Adha-the feast that celebtrates the saving of Abraham's son,from execution,and his replacement b by a lamb.During that week,Arabs all over the Muslim world,slaughter a lamb or sheep,in public,on the street,or in their backyards.I have witnessed such sacrifices-they are bloody and gruesome.And yet,in all my life,I have never seen one of thos animals dying without a semblance of humanity-or compassion.

However,one may feel about the late Libyan President,and he was a head of state,this kind of gory execution,is inhuman and does not conform to the most extreme forms of Muslim executions.Should the United States,which made it possible,by the Nato airstrike, which located the Qaddafi convoy-have taken credit for this globalized murder?

That is the question.

About Town.August 30.20ll

With all,that is happening in the Arab world,it is,or would be,frivolous to write about Tucson,Arizona.Many people,will be visiting this place,to escape the bad weather on the east coast,such as hurricane-Irene-.Buyers Beware.

The best way to visit this town is to stay at the airport-where there are some of the best hotels.I recommend the Hyatt,which has an extraordinary desert ambience and a first class reception and staff.The pool,especially,is quite dazzling.At all costs,The Comfort Inn,which is half a block down,is to be avoided.It should be called the Downward Inn.

Another hotel,to be avoided,if you visit,the northern part of the city-is the Westward Look Resort.It is very unfriendly,and so expensive.

Tucson is a military town,and the one thing that must not be missed,is the Titan museam,which exhibits the first missile ever built in the United States.

The Burning of the Israeli Flag,at Tahrir Square,in Cairo.

It was only a matter of time before the protestors of Tahrir Square,turned their attention to the peace treaty with Israel.On August l9,20ll,al Jazeera reported that there were huge demonstrations in front of the Israeli embassy in Cairo,which made the demands,that the Israeli flag be removed from the building.This anger,which also denounced the l979 peace treaty with Israel,was triggered by the killing of six security guards in the Sinai,near Elat,by Israeli gunfire.The Israelis maintained that they were responding to an attack from Gaza.If,so,what were they doing in the northern Sinai?

The protestors,chanted other slogans,which I will not repeat here.But,this time,the army,watched quietly by,without attacking the demonstrators.Meanwhile,the Egyptian government has promised an investigation,and has asked the Israeli government to recompense the families of the security soldiers.

The Sinai,which was heavily guarded by the Mubarak regime,is now,in the words of one Israeli,a " no mans land".Maybe so.But it is clear,that the Egyptians,including the army,will not tolerate,anything amounting to violence,from the Israelis.The peace treaty? Who knows.

THE TRIAL OF MUBARAK.

August 3.20ll.

The image on television,is of an elderly man,on a stretcher,behind bars.The man,Hosni Mubarak,stepped down from power,in Febuary,He had been the president of Egypt,since l98l,when Anwar al-Sadat,was murdered by an Islamic extremist,while reviewing a military parade,on October 6. of that year.
Mubarak did not seek power.It was thrust upon him,as the next in line to Sadat.At that time,he had an impecable reputarion,as Egypt,s hero,the air force commander,who had enabled the destruction of the Israeli fortification on the west bank of the Suez canal,nown as the Bar Lev line.

Subsequently,he started as President,by freeing all political prisoners.He reinforced the peace with Israel,by entering into talks withthem,and by overseeing the return of the Sinai ,or at least parts of it,to Egypt,s sovereignity.His accomplishments are long.And,I find it almost impossible to believe,that he was a corrupt man.

He is now being humiliated,in a court proceeding,which attempts to make him directly responsible for the deaths of about eight hundred demonstrators in Tahrir Square in January.How the chain of command can be established,is the question.Who really ordered the killings.
For instance,State Sequrity,is a land of its own.It takes orders from no one.Were they responsible.?

The fact remains,that Mubarak is being held accountable.Ayman al Zawahri,must be pleased.And all the enemies of the United States,must gloat at the way,Mubarak,is being treated,

A Tribute to Hosni Mubarak..It is no secret that a while ago,Mubarak of Egypt,was taken ill and flown to Germay for treatment.Egyptian T>V> broadc ast his progress at several intervals during the day in Cairo,showing him,as well,with his German doctors. Recently,on June 7,we see him on many media outlets,with Joe Biden,who was in Cairo.Mubarak seemed very relaxed,and almost amused at the strung out,if not nervous,American vice President.If you know Egyptian body language,Mubarak,was a little too relaxed,and observed Biden,quizically.The meeting did n ot produce a joint declaration of any sorts,and the nervous Biden was on his way,next day to Kenya. Mubarak,was relaxed,because,in my opin ion,he was now in a perfect position to re-open the Rafah Crossing,which Egypt,had closed for the past three years,to appease agreements with Israel,amongst other considerations.Now,that the Flotilla tragedy had taken place,it seemed the appropriate ting for Mubarak to do-and he did.The Rafah crossing will remain open indefinitely. This was Mub arak's day. I personally have never suffered,as others have,under the Mubarak regime.Quite the contrary.In the eighties and nineties,I was given complete freedom of the press in Cairo and was even allowed to interview Muslim extrem ists.I was also given a press card,thanks to the promptings of the Authors Guild. I was also treated with the utmost curesty as an Arab American,wherever,I went.And, in the m id-n ineties,when I was a frequent visitor in the Egyptian courts,I was treated fairly by the justice system,and with dignity-in several lawsuits which dealt with family law and Domestic violence. But this-is relatively unimportant.What is important,is that there is much unrest in Egypt.Sixty per cent of the population is under twenty-five.Unemployment and corruption are often attributed,not to globalization and the astounding population increase,but it is laid down as Mubarak's fault and attributed to the corruption which surrounds him. All I know,and I cannot give an opinion on all this-is that Mubarak has allowed a healthy opposition consisting of various political parties at odds with him---to flourish Moreover,these young people have forgotten what Egypt was like while it was fighting Israel in l948,l956,l967 and in l973 It was a bleak,war torn place.After the l973 war,things,in Egypt changed. Moral improved with the overwhelming feeling of victory that we had as we crossed the Bar-Lev line and penetrated into Sinai.True,thee was a counterattack,but the Israelis had to withdraw to northern Sinai,and in the mid-eighties,they withdrew altogether from the Sinai.Egypt was made whole again,and the Suex Canal,which from l967 until l982, was re=opened.It had been mined by Israel,thus losing billions of dollars of revenue for Egypt. The Israeli mines had made navigation in the waterway,impossible. Against this background,one must look at Mubarak,s contribution.People have forgotten the pivotal role he played in winning the October war of l973."And I quote from my book"A Bridge Through Time"(Summit Books,New York, l985) ""...on October 6,l973,Egypt attacked Israel.Our jets launched an air strike against Israeli forces on the east bank of the canal,the Suez canal,in a surprise attack,planned and led by ab unknown air force general-Hosni Mubarak. During that strike, the Egyptian air force,that same force,which had been destroyed,on the ground six years earlier,now succesfully attacked-all command positions and posts,aerial combat headquarters,missile batteries, and all Israeli gun emplacements in the Sinai. " Allahu Akhbar,Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar,La Illah illa Allah" words resounding loudly from the tops of Cairo' thousan d minarets and echoing through every street and alley." Mubarak,I think,is underestimated,in his own country and in the U>S,A CLA specialist,recently called Mubarak,a " brutal dictator"I don't think so at all.He may be a dictator,but,in my opinion,he is a military dictator.And yet,he is the only Egyptian leader of the twentieth and twenty first century ,not to take Egypt in to war.Any war.
He came into power in l98l,to replace the murdered Anwar al Sadat,He was elected with a "referen dum",and subsequently he has been winning---all his elections.Nonetheless- he made peace,and for a while,a truce,with Israel---which has never been broken.
Secondly,he freed all his muslim extrem ists in the eighties and in the nineties,and allowed them to run for
parliment.But,recently he put a great deal of them back in jail,and will not allow them to gain favor with the people.
He has allowed several opposition newspapers to be printed and he also has allowed the formation of parties which openly oppose his leadership,such as "Kefaya"..
He has allowed cable to be brought,without much censorship,into all homes,and of course,he has no way of stopping the internet.

If he were a brutal dictator,Egyptians would nt be allowed to come and go,as they please,to open businesses,with unlimited capital,to engage in the stock market,and above alltp be free to express themselves on the radio,and to a certain extent,on television.Theefore,he has opened up the private sector,inall aspects of life,while still maintaining,the public sector,in certain domains,such as his political party,al hisb al wtani al democrati.


If Mubarak,is hated in some circles,it is because of his adherence to the peace treaty of l979,with Israel.It is even said,that in certain circles,trade relations with Israel are maintained.And of course,we have a diplomatic exchange with the Israelis.


And finally--he is a good friend of America-and could,if he were given the chance-play an important role in the peace process.He is surrounded by top notch Egyptian intellects and diplomats,such as Amr Mussa and Usama al Baz.His wife is also an assett.She remains unveiled and Europeanized.And his son,that much hated Gamal-(I'll never know why),is an urbane,educated, and concerned young politician,who wishes to follow in his father's footsteps.Certainly,Gamal Mubarak,is no Muqtada Sadr.Is that a good thing or a bad thing for the United States?

The text you type here will appear directly below the image

The text you type here will appear directly below the image

My fraud lawsuit which I won in Egypt in 1999 (Case 3533 Criminal Court of Kasrlelnil). See attached for complete translation of the verdict. (503.7KB)

My relationship with the feminist Gloria Steinem (39.1KB)

Article appearing in New Haven Register, on May 17, 2004 about the abuses at Abu Ghraib, in Iraq.

The New Klu Klux Klan

June 18, 2004
A few weeks ago, my letter on the prison abuse scandal was published by the Registrer, as "Jailors knew exactly how to degrade Arabs". I was astonished to receive an anonymous letter with theses words scrawled on a photocopy of the article...

"Any hatred was earned by the ignorant hateful murderers of 3000 innocent people 9/11. As an American who has a family member in service of MY country, I don't worry about their so called culture if it saves just ONE American Soldiers life. It was NOT a criminal act to a SUB-culture, a culture not needed in America".

The writer chose to remain anonymous like the Klu Klux Klan, so this viturperative hatred is shouted in anonymity, just like the racial hatred directed towards the blacks in the 50's was. There were 60 nations that suffered loses in the 9/11 attacks, including Muslims. Amerincan lives are precious but so are German lives, French lives, Congolese lives, and Arab lives. There is no qualitive difference. Sadly, instead of trying to learn more and understand the culture of Islam that has become so integral to life in the U.S., some bigots will behave irrationally and allow hatred to dominate their perceptions.

I like to think that in Guilford and the greater New Haven area, they are few and far between.
Dr. Laila Abou-Saif
Guilford, CT

The Garden of Allah February 24, 2007
Image of the Arabs 3

To the western mind, the Arab world remains a closed door

Occasionally, a glimpse of it can be caught in Hollywood movies, such as "Lawrence of Arabia" or even "The Garden of Allah" (recently shown on AMC). But these are glimpses.

Nowadays the images of Iraq, in the news, whether electronic or print, have made many people experts on the region, even the bloggers, who have no knowledge of the language.

How does one get to know or penetrate any culture or foreign country, especially in the Arab Middle East? If there were an answer to that question, the U.S. would have won the war, it is now losing Iraq. There is no answer. There are certain aspects of that society, Arab society, which are veiled, like its women and therefore, “muharram” (forbidden) to the west.

Understanding the role and position of Arab women, is one key to opening that closed world. But women do not speak out nor do they mingle, unless they are actually living outside Arab society, such as myself.

Without understanding the role of Arab women, whether they are Arab Christians or Arab Muslims, that task becomes almost impossible: without understanding the culture, it is impossible to change it. For instance, the word “harem,” is well known to western minds and evokes polygamy and or segregation. But, there are many derivatives of that word in Arabic. There is the noun: “haram” which refers to the word wife; another derivative is “haraam”, which means shame or “muharam” which means forbidden. Therefore a woman’s identity, at least linguistically is linked with shame and the forbidden. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

If today, Islmaic extremism is spreading, it is because Arabs feel the need, now more than ever in this world of information, to keep that forbidden world of women, cloistered and veiled. For this they turn to religion and the Koran, as well as tribal customs, which envelope both Christian and Muslim communities.

In other words extremism will always exist to protect Arab society from western values. Even Edward Said that immense, Arab intellectual, denounced feminism in one of his books (see Orientalism). Arab feminists, such as Nawal Saadawi, are ostracized, their books banned, because they dare to question religious and tribal customs, such as female sexual mutiliation (exision). I wonder if they read Saadawi’s books in the Pentagon? It would seem that human rights for women, in the western sense, like feminism, is a contradiction in terms.

The only “rights” for women are those permitted by the Koran or by orthodox Christian church or the Maronite Church.

Some Arab leaders are or were only too glad to give women all their rights, leaders such as Ataturk in Turkey, Nasser in Egypt ( the right to vote amongst others), Sadat (the right to participate in politics), The right not to wear the veil (Bourghiba in Tunisia), and even ironically, Saddam Hussein (the right of women to become judges) But all these rights sooner or later were revoked by the clerics and/​or condemned. The clerics always have the final word. And, more important, is the nuclear family. The men in Arab families, Christian or Muslim impose these customs and tribal traditions, fanatically.

Can western democracy, imposed militarily change all this?
That is the question.

Muslim Extremism and Iraq. This article was written before the invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces on March 25, 2003 (125.1KB)

September 5, 2006: Remembering Naguib Mahfouz, Egyptian Novelist. Born 1914, Died 8/​31/​06

He was not only Egypt's foremost novelist but he was also its chief intellectual. He contributed to all the major newspapers of the Egyptian revolution and what he wrote set the political tone of the country.

I was lucky to meet Naguib Mahfouz when I interviewed him extensively. Here is the interview which speaks for itself.

"Naguib Mahfouz (b. 1911) is a household name in all Arab countries. Here, his name commands respect, even veneration. Every man, woman, or child who reads or sees movies has been exposed to his politically and socially committed ideas. Nasser and Sadat courted him for their regimes. And every week he is given two full pages in Al-Ahram (the major government-controlled paper) to dispose of as he wishes.

"To the Arab reader, whatever Mahfouz writes is not only great literature but the truth. Naguib is the first writer in Arabic to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature (1988).

"It was, therefore, quite difficult to arrange a meeting with this formidable man. Several phone calls were made. Finally, he gave me an appointment.

"The rendezvous was at Casino Cleopatra along the banks of the Nile in Zamalek; a dark, open-aired sort of terrace restaurant which is usually considered a place of assignation. It was a hot, humid August night and there was a cool breeze in the restaurant situated at the edge of the Nile; a kaleidoscope of glistening lights and sounds came from across the water. This was Naguib Mahfouz's haunt. This was where he spent his evenings, sitting alone at a table, sipping an unsweetened cup of Turkish coffee.

He is not a young man, but he is still very much at the center of the intellectual mainstream of Egypt. Mahfouz began to write historical novels in the thirties, and then in 1945 he wrote the first in a series of novels in which he recorded contemporary Egyptian life with great realism and skilled characterization. In 1956 and 1957 he published a trilogy in twelve hundred pages about an Egyptian middle-class family during the two wars, and recently he has published a short novel on the assassination of Sadat--for which, when I met him, he was trying to find a film producer.

"When I approached his table, I introduced myself, and he got up immediately and shook my hand warmly. "What will you have to drink?" he said. I also asked for a cup of unsweetened Turkish coffee. At first we talked a little about the oppressive heat, and he began to tell me about places that were cool and where one could get away from the heat in the evenings.

As he talked, I felt very humble to be in the presence of this great novelist. He is a thin man and wears dark sunglasses, even at night. His head is bald, and he was wearing an inexpensive cotton suit with no tie. Both Nasser and Sadat pandered to him to win him over to their policies--for what Mahfouz writes in his columns and novels is taken seriously.

But after talking with him, I sensed a deep disillusion with the rulers of Egypt in the past thirty years, even though he was not about to express that in so many words. We talked about American cultural influence and the Islamic movements. Mahfouz reacted as a humanist; he is open to other cultures--in fact he believes in such interaction. But the Muslim fundamentalists scare him, even though he would not admit it. They are the "ghost" which the "intellectual or the writer sees perennially before him as he tries to express himself," he said quietly.

"A slight breeze came from the river. We sat quietly a few minutes, sipping our coffee. "Do you mind if I use a tape recorder?" I asked.

"No," he replied.

"Tell me about the religious movements."

"The religious movement is old in Egypt--so that you can say that the modern revival began as a religious revival, as in the case of the Imam Mohammed Abdou (a religious reformer who died in 1905). And in a similar fashion, the old movement of the Muslim Brotherhood of 1927 had as its main objective the education of the ideal Muslim youth within the context of the Islamic religion. What was the inevitable result of this? Since religion is belief and religious law, this idealist movement began to demand the application of sharia and thereby clashed with the state. That's what happened."

"But they (the Islamic movements) seem to be flourishing these days. What happened?" I asked.

"He was silent for a few moments, then speaking cautiously, he said: "The Muslim (Brotherhood) had a real understanding of Islam and forgiveness, and modernism--they understood the spirit of their age--they were not closed and that is why many enlightened people joined them. And when there was war between the Brotherhood and the authorities, they were tortured in prison and the reaction to this torture was extremism. And there emerged certain militant extremist tendencies which proclaimed that all of society was impious, infidels. Of course, what made matters worse was the 1967 defeat and the economic situation. They are all depressed young people and they have been exposed to many slogans--democracy, socialism, and this and that, until there is nothing left for them to try but fundamentalism."

"And that filled the vacuum?" I asked. "Extremism is a result of negative pressure from society. Whenever you have bad conditions in society, you will have extremist trends. Like Russia before the revolution. There was chaos there because of the social ills. Maybe there is a need to change the regime? Maybe people are tired of thirty yeaers of the Egyptian revolution?" I volunteered.

"It is true, at present there is a lot of freedom. If there were no freedom, we wouldn't hear the voices of the extremists, in spite of the fact that they are not recognized. But the economic situation is suffocating. The young Egyptians are depressed, the future before them is dismal. In our days, life was hard, but there was hope. Why? Because there were people who could get jobs if they had a university education."

"Are you not anxious, then? I mean if they apply sharia and take power? And then we would become like Iran? Would this make Naguib Mahfouz anxious?" I said leaning forward, speaking in hushed tones.

"Anything unknown would make me anxious. How?

"If they had translated their aims into modern language and declared: This is our constitution, our regime will be thus, human rights in our system will be thus, the treatment of minorities will be thus, our position with respect to science is thus, and with respect to the arts thus and with respect to ideas thus, and our position with respect to economics is this--then I would tell you, only after they take power, what I would be. But I don't know anything. If you hear them say: Our constitution is the Koran, okay, the Koran was the constitution of Omar Ibn al-Khattab (the second caliph of Islam) and it was also the constitution of Sultan Abdel Hamid (Turkish caliph of the later nineteenth century). Not so?

"We had bad Islamic periods where the Koran was the constitution. We had, for instance, in Egypt the 1923 constitution, under which we witnessed good political eras and others which were of the worst kind. Therefore, when you ask me how I will be when these (extremists) take over, I can only answer, I will be faced with the unknown and therefore I don't know. Whether they will improve or make things worse, I can't tell. You are asking me if it will be like Iran--I don't know. Because all I hear about Iran is from people who don't like it. And I have become accustomed not to make a judgment until I hear both sides. I do not know what's happening in Iran and what kind of rule they have, what economic policies they have, what kind of political system they have, and I can't judge from here."

"If there is an application of the sharia, will we be governed by an imam, do you think? Not by a secular president?" I asked.

"It is not a question of secular or an imam. The important thing is how will I be governed."

"Nonetheless, when the man of religion rules, it is quite different from the man of politics. Not so?" I asked.

"Yes. But I have never tried the rule of religion."

"Maybe he will be an improvement, I mean the imam?"

"My position vis-a-vis these tendencies is the same as the position I have vis-a-vis the unknown, which one cannot be reassured of or confident about. By the same token, this lack of confidence on my part is not factual. I hear nothing but slogans and criticisms of everything. And the worst part of it is that their opponents have brought the country down to the worst level. If secularism had given us good things, it would be fine, but I can find nothing to say in reply (to the Islamists)."

"They say the United States is the cause of all this. That it is encouraging extremism--if you consider extremism a reactionary thing--America, of course, wishes to fight communism with any means so it encourages those Islamic movements. Sadat opened the door for them and that, at least, is what is being said abroad. So what is your opinion on the role the U.S. is playing? Is it a positive one or not?"

"What can one, ideally speaking, demand of a superpower like the U.S.? The answer is that its responsibility with the world should be commensurate with its size. That, you will tell me, is an ideal position. Maybe. Let's leave it. Because idealism is rarely realized. Let's be realistic. A great country like the U.S. why should it concern itself with the Middle East? No doubt there are interests? Maybe I don't know these interests. But I know that a country like the U.S. doesn't concern itself with a country such as the one I am living in unless it has a specific interest: political, economic, and the two together; and surely it must have certain demands. Fine. It's wise if it reconciles between its own interests and the interests of the others. What do we need America for? For our development, technologically? For our debts? In return for this we have to do certain things. And we should understand that. But the man in the street must not feel that he has given up his freedom for his bread."

"I feel that the man in the street is not too crazy about America. What do you think?" I asked.

"The man in the street suffers. And since he suffers, he will not like anything. Not Egypt and not America. Only those who are not suffering like America."

"The Egyptian left says that the U.S. plays a negative role: It gives us aspirations and models which cannot be realized, the stereotypes we see in films, the consumer society, etc. In other words it creates an image of a lifestyle which can never be realized in a poor third-world country."

"Yes, but it does not do so on purpose. Their films reflect their lifestyles. We think it's a conspiracy, but there is no conspiracy."

"So, you don't think it's propaganda."

"Of course not. They are a consumer society and they buy everything on installments and they are always in debt to their companies, but I can help them if they help us improve our situation. They want to oppose communism for instance. In Egypt that can only happen if we improve our situation and not by encouraging those trends."

"But don't you have any reservations about the role that the U.S. is playing?"

"I don't like Libya or Qaddafi. But I didn't like his being bombed. As for the rights of the Palestinians, look at how America is prejudiced toward Israel. She, the U.S., speaks about peace, but she does not look at it from both sides with equilibrium. The Palestinians are the victims."

"What do you think of the peace with Israel and the normalization of relations?"

"I am for the peace which Sadat brought about. Because the war had brought us death and impetence. And only several years after the peace have we started to establish our basic infrastructure, as if we were a country which was just about to begin. We have seen four horrible wars."

"That's right, I have seen four wars."

"Do you know of any country whwich has been through this? Four wars spaced out with four- or five-year intervals until we were liquidated. We lost one hundred thousand million pounds and then we complain that we are in debt? How can we not ask for peace after that? The Arabs treated us very badly. How can we be where we are today and they are so wealthy? I think, therefore, we are indebted to Sadat for the peace and for the liberation of the land, and the fact that at least now we are preoccupied with our own problems.

"Why is it that there are intellectuals like Yussef Idris who say, "This is treason," and, "How can we have a demilitarized Sinai?" and so on. There are people who think the peace is a good thing."

"But it is a minority, not so?" I asked.

"A minority. I think it is a minority. We have a cause that we tried to resolve with war and couldn't. Then we have to do it with peace, and let's end it. The very fact that we got involved in the first place was wrong. The Palestinians are the victims of the Arabs before they became the victims of the Israelis. If they (the Arabs) had not interfered in the Palestinian problem today, these same Palestinians would be in their homes."

"How is that?"

"Look at it from the beginning: Didn't the League of Nations give Britain a mandate over Palestine? And didn't it encourage immigration to Palestine? And it had to accommodate the immigrants with the original owners of the country. At any rate, the Palestinians would have remained in Palestine because the British couldn't tell them to leave, because they allowed immigrants to come in--no? It would have been solved even in the worst of cases, even if the country had been divided into two, but its owners would have been part of it."

"This was the lost opportunity. You are right."

"But the Arab countries said: Give them homes in the Arab countries, and then they themselves began to kill them. So that if you figure out the number of Palestinians killed by Arabs, you will find out that it exceeds those killed by Israelis.

"To this very day, the Arabs are the reason for the lack of resolution--it is a matter between the Jews and the Palestinians and they should sit down and solve it. After the Peres summit I think they have found a formula. Look at Qaddafi--instead of waging war on America, why doesn't he fight Israel?"

"What about terrorism?" I asked.

"Terrorism is not just Arab. There is terrorism in Germany, Japan, and Spain. It is the way that today's youth rejects the world around it. Terrorism in the Middle East is caused by the Palestinians, people who have been expelled from their countries, they have become terrorists. It is the only tool in their hands. They see the world opposing them, so they hit back at anything. To resolve Arab terrorism is to resolve the Palestinian problem."

"You mean if they had a state there would no longer be any terrorism?"

"If they had a state, or even a bi-national state with Jordan, then the terrorism would disappear."

"What about the extremists--do you think they would accept the solution of a Palestinian state in the West Bank?"

"When the Palestinians themselves accept a solution, then all other tongues will be silenced."

"Do you have any hopes that Israel will accept the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank?"

"Yes. I am not optimistic, but after thirty years of blood and wars it seems to me that the Palestinians themselves want to resolve it, and that's what's important."

"I am more pessimistic than you are," I replied. "The Israelis will never accept a Palestinian state because they do not want a Palestinian military army next door to them . . ."

"And the Arabs, too, don't want this kind of a state. Why? Maybe it would be a Communist state. But maybe the confederacy with Jordan will work."

"Let's talk a little about American culture in the Arab world. What do you think of the influence of the American example? You write in your novels about the originality of Egyptian mores and traditions, and how we must not forsake them."

"Are you indicating maybe, the cultural invasion of the U.S.? First of all I don't like that concept. The two words "invasion" and "culture" should never go together because the word "invasion" is associated in my mind with militarism and colonialism and the word "culture" is the arts, literature, behavior, and attitude in life. We are in the age of communication and information--the whole world knows each other--I prefer to call all this interaction and not invasion. And we can always learn from it. We have always been open to this so-called cultural invasion and we were never scared of it."

"So you are not rejecting Western culture, you are not opposed to it?"

"I am an admirer of Western culture. I can learn a lot from it as I do from science and technology. What I hate is negativism. I always want my mind to be active, to be able to differentiate what is beautiful from what is ugly. What I call invasion is not cultural invasion but internal invasion. When I accept everything without questioning whether it is useful or not. If you train your young to be intellectually independent, to be thinkers and to have vision, then you can throw them into any culture."

"But that is secular thinking."

"All cultures are humanistic. Humanistic culture illuminates everywhere. Some cultures can be suitable to all places while others can only be suitable to the place whence they emanate.

"Their culture, the others (the Americans), is what they bring up their children on, so it's not poison, right? So that when they export their cultures, they export the best they have--not so? If you submit to it negatively then it's your fault, not the culture's fault. That's why I don't like this term cultural invasion."

"Do you say those things in your novels?"

"I think it is reflected in my stories and articles and all that I say because I firmly believe in it."

"And you have never been attacked by the extremist elements that now exist in our society?"

"The extremist elements are closed minds and one-dimensional--they are ideologues."

"You are considered today the greatest novelist in the Arab world. What would you like to say to the U.S.? Do you have a message?"

"America is a superpower and should put itself in the service of the principles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It should put its power in the service of those principles and not in humiliating people."

"Do you feel that the U.S. is humiliating us now? Is not giving us enough money? Or enough aid?"

"No. I didn't like that the U.S. bombed Libya or Lebanon--this is not the U.S. I admire. I do not deny that it helps us substantially and that it lends us things, but we are going through a severe crisis; we are not escaping our debts, and we need a little bit more flexibility, more facilities in the repayments. And I think it is in the interest of the U.S. that I rise--not that I kneel."

"The U.S. says that in order to postpone the repayments of the debts, you have to improve certain elements in your economic life--for instance the food subsidies."

"You mean we must take certain measures?"

"Birth control, the population explosion."

"We are trying to do these things but we are also trying to avoid an explosion."

"But what do you think of the population explosion? Is there such a problem?"

"Of course. But birth control has to be practiced through education and culture."

"What about the changing of women's role in society? Women are fifty percent of the population in Egypt."

"Birth control, as it is called, we have practiced for tens of years at certain educated levels of society--so it's a matter of spreading education and culture."

"What about the religious movements in the country who say that we must increase?"

"I know. This is the opinion of all the men of religion."

"What about the poor?"

"The poor? Who are the poor today? They are the government bureaucrats."

"What about the peasants?"

"The working classes are doing fine these days. Their emigration in the days of Sadat to the Arab countries improved their lot, but the ones whose level of living declined are the urban proletariat--those with fixed incomes or salaries."

"So you are not against the open-door economic policy?"

"No. Only against the way it happened. It was a consumeristic infitah. That was destructive."

"Then you approve of the austerity that's happening now? The restrictions on imports, etc."

"Of course, of course."

"You approve of all those things that are happening in Egypt now?"

"Many things are happening."

"Economically, policially?"

"No doubt. Since Hosni Mubarak has come into power, the country has new policies, but the fault lies with the executive powers that are slightly incapacitated by the conomic and moral erosion."

"Then you think that things can go on in this way?"

"It all depends on the patience and endurance of Egyptians because everything is taking so long to get accomplished."

"But who is to blame?"

"All those wars. And Mubarak inherited all those things."

"If you were to go to the election polls, which party would you want in power? This is an abstract question."

"We have two parties, the NDP and the Wafd. But I think they are one party with two wings--one is more inclined to democracy, the other to socialism--and that is the Wafd. If we leave the parties to form freely--I have demanded this more than once--then these two will become one."

"What about the Islamic party?"

"They are obscure--unclear program."

"And emotional?"

"Very emotional. And they've made a lot of enemies--the Christians, the Jews, and the Muslims. Honestly, the Muslims. Who is with them? They are by themselves. They want to right the whole world."

"Then you would vote for democracy and freedom?"

"Social democracy."

"What was the latest novel you wrote?"

"The Day the Leader Was Assassinated. About Sadat. I've also written Conversations in the Morning and Evening. It's about a family living at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. Three generations of the family."

"But the novel about the assassination. What's the point of view there?"

"It's basically about the difficulties facing today's youth, the infitah, and it ends with the death of someone who could be Sadat."

"Do you think Egyptian society is going forward--toward modernization?"

"There is development, but as I told you before, those executive powers are handicapped. The forces that are pulling us back are strong."

Translated from the Arabic by Laila Abou-Saif and excerpted from Middle East Journal, Vantage Books, June 2002.

Timing is Everything (41.2KB)

The above is a certificate of a criminal judgement obtained in the criminal court Kasr El-Nir at its public session on (7/30/2001) presided by Mr. Mohamed Alramley for the District Attorney, and Mr. Maher Shafik Secretary. The following judgement was issued in the District Attorney's Case No. 6823/1999 Kasr El-Nil Misdemeanor. As civil claimant, I was awarded the amount of 2001 Pounds as a provisional restitution against ADEL NESSIM ABOU-SAIF. As can be seen from the above certificate, the District Attorney, in addition, demanded the defendant be punished according to 341 Penal Law. The court sentanced the defendant to 6 months in jail with labor and ordered him to pay 500 Pounds in warranty and 2001 Pounds provisional restitution. And ordered to dismiss the counter civil claim against me and pay all expenses. This lawsuit involved valuable objects of furniture and antiques which were appropriated by the defendant from the estate of my mother, and which, with this verdict he was obliged to put in my possesion.

American lawsuits. New Haven, CT. Domestic violence in an Egyptian family: an untold tragedy. I was represented in this proceeding by the now famous attorney, Karen Lee Torre -who is the lawyer who represented the fire fighters of New Haven. (263.3KB)