Ayoon Wa Azan (to whom are you reading your psalms, David?)

I felt that the President of Gambia had exaggerated his titles as he introduced himself. The written transcript of his speech described him as His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhaji Dr. Yahya Abdul-Azziz Jemus Junkung Jammeh. Then I heard the Iranian president speak. The best thing about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is his modesty. He humbly referred to Iran’s role in building the world, both past and present, and said that he came from Iran, the land of glory and beauty, knowledge and culture, and the cradle of philosophy and mysticism. He claimed that Iran was the land of light, science, scholars, philosophers, and the masters of culture and writers, the land of Ibn Sina, al-Ferdowsi, al-Khayyam and Shahriar. He also said that he represented a great and proud nation that had founded human civilization, no less. Can the reader believe that I, in the course of the above, had only summarized the views of the Iranian president on his country? He then concluded his address with what was even odder than the way he had begun it with, when he said that the Mahdi would come again along with Jesus Christ to reform this world. I mean, I have started to despair of seeing Imam Musa al-Sadr, who was a great man, 30-odd years after his absence. Yet President Ahmadinejad wants me to wait for the Mahdi, even though 1400 years have since elapsed. But if I want to be objective, I have to say that between the introduction and the conclusion of his speech, the Iranian president spoke about the West, armament, wars and aggression, and what he said was true. All that was left to say, as he came down from the rostrum, was “Live and may Iran live”, to borrow from what it is customary to say in Lebanon during speeches. Ahmadinejad’s speech was his eighth and last speech at the UN General Assembly. Following his first speech, I mentioned in this column that I had asked him: In which chapter and verse of the Quran is it mentioned that the Muslims are forbidden from possessing nuclear weapons – which is what he had stated in his speech. After his aides translated what I said, and they exchanged questions and answers, he responded by only shaking my hands and thanking me. President Mohammad Mursi followed the Iranian president to the rostrum, after two other speakers. But the Egyptian leader’s speech was clear and accurate, and he began it by reading verses from the Quran urging good will and peace among people, which echoes the United Nation’s message. When he moved into politics, he began with the Palestinian question and the rights of the Palestinian people, and pledged that Egypt would always support them to regain their rights and establish the Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital. Mursi then moved to Syria, and spoke about the bloodshed and tragedy there. He said that a regime that killed its people must go, adding that we are all responsible for the disaster in Syria, which he described as being the tragedy of the century that is our duty to put an end to. I praised President Musri for his speech, and told him that I supported 99 percent of what it said. I then wished success for the new regime in Egypt on the basis of intentions rather than capabilities, because the intentions are big and many, but the capabilities are limited. The 1 percent in Mursi’s speech that I had reservations about was the part where he spoke about the freedom of speech, and called for a ban on insults to religions and prophets. I say to him that this will not happen in the West. President Obama, in his opening speech, addressed this point specifically, and said that freedoms were not American or Western rights, but were global rights. The New York Times also criticized President Mursi and Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who began his speech by raising the issue of the film insulting the Prophet of Islam. To both presidents I say that any talk about respecting the freedom of speech provided that it does not include insults to religions will be considered an attempt to restrict the freedom of speech in the West. Since this would never happen, any such stance taken by the Arabs and Muslims will be exploited by their enemies to be used as a proof that they are opposed to freedoms. As I heard the addresses of the Arab delegates, I was thinking that the world was ‘programmed’ against me. Indeed, between the one speech and the other that I wanted to hear, I found myself forced to hear three or four speeches that I certainly did not want to listen to. Does the reader know, for example, that there are countries called Micronesia, Antigua, Barbuda, St. Vincent, the Grenadines, Saint Kitts, Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe? Where exactly are these states, which had forced me to wait all the way until Friday evening? The last address I heard at the UN General Assembly was that of Saudi Arabia, which was delivered by Prince Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. He spoke on behalf of his country and me also, when, after pleasantries, he immediately moved to the Palestinian issue and attacked Israeli intransigence. He demanded a seat for Palestine in the United Nations, and spoke about Syria, where he tackled the issue of the regime’s inflexibility and its insistence on the military-based solution despite the fact that thousands of victims had perished. Prince Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah criticized the international community’s failure to aid the Syrian people. After that, he spoke about the Iranian nuclear program, and expressed his support for Iran’s right and the right of all countries in the region to peaceful nuclear energy, calling for stripping the Middle East of WMDs. I will not say that the Prince’s speech fell on deaf ears, but to borrow from the Old Testament which they read in America, I say: To whom are you reading your psalms, David? The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.