In today’s issue (Arabic), al-Ghad published an apology on the front page. Here is the gist of it.
Al-Ghad said Raed al-Banna was not the car bomber of al Hilla and apologized for publishing information without checking it. Al-Ghad apologized as well to the Iraqi people for publishing this information. The paper also condemned the attacks on Sunni and Shia Iraq and stated their support and solidarity with the Iraqi people. Okay at least they apologized, this makes me feel much better. Perhaps I will change my mind about boycotting them.
Also in al Ghad, a Jordanian official denied (Arabic) that the Hilla bomber was Jordanian.
In addition, the father of the alleged bomber sent a letter (Arabic) to al-Ghad that in essence denied his son’s role in al-Hilla, saying that his son left Jordan to work and that he received a phone call informing him that his son was killed in Mosul. He denied organizing what the paper called "a martyr’s wedding" and condemned the attacks on Iraqis. The father said he only received people in his tribe conference hall that had heard the news that his son was killed in one of the districts of Mosul. He also said he plans on suing the satellite stations that ruined his image and that of his family.
The lesson of this fiasco: Irresponsible journalism can result in national scandals. Advice to al-Ghad: Train your journalists!
Before I go, I just discovered a NY Times story following up on these events. Their version follows out much of what I’ve written here, adding some pictures and curious quotes. The full text is also available on the newswire.
More on the Al-Ghad Article and anti-Jordanian Protetests
Natasha Tynes has more about the al-Ghad article that helped spark anti-Jordanian protests in Iraq:Al-Ghad said Raed al-Banna was not the car bomber of al Hilla and apologized for publishing information without checking it. Al-Ghad apologized as well t…
Whether the story was fabricated or not, that’s another issue. The imprisonment should be for those who supported the martyrdom in the story, and argued about it.
I understand the hadith just fine. It’s quite explicit and clear. I’m referring to the father’s comments about how anyone who dies outside of his country is considered a martyr, which is not correct. That’s what I’m pointing to. If you are suggesting that he means by “dying” that they are killed then that’s a possibility if the condition you state is met. But he doesn’t clear up anywhere what he knows about his son’s death.
If he is using “dying” to suggest being killed then why isn’t he telling us how he was killed. I mean, as you note and is clear in that hadith, the person must die in the name of Islam. Even thought the story has changed, the father has not retracted his statement that his son died a martr. The father, if he is saying he was in fact killed would have to be saying that his son was killed in the name of Islam. But he doesn’t say how he would know this.
I wouldn’t just assume because my son was killed that he’d been killed in the name of Islam. The father, on the one hand, says he doesn’t really know what was going on, only that his son was killed. But then, on the other hand, he seems clear that his son was a martyr, which we’d have to assume because of the definition set forth in this hadith means he died in the name of Islam. If the father is saying that, then he’s also saying something else isn’t he?
Additionally, there seems to be a lack of information on where the body is. There are strict rules of burial in place here, sa7? So what has become of the body. Obviously, if he was the bomber, there would be nothing to bury. But if he was not, as is being put forth now, I would think that there would be a body and a burial place that could be determined with some research.
I think the al-Ghad report got some things right. I think they are being altered now because no one realized what kind of backlash would result after their release. Someone wasn’t thinking when they made that decision. I think the family knows a lot more than they are saying now; now they aren’t going to say a word.
Hubby, no no perhaps u misunderstood the hadith, because thats what it is: من مات غريبا مات شهيدا. what he’s saying is that he recieved information in that telephone call saying his son had died in mosul and was burried there. he then says whomever dies in such a matter is a martyr.
now the hadith is refering to those who left their home or homeland and died elsewhere in the name of islam. i.e. there are many types of martyrs and they are not strictly contained to the typical media stereotype. the prophet pbuh in this hadith was indicating one such type of martyr.
Journalism in Jordan is in a very bad shape. Would you believe me if I tell you that many journalists in Jordan don’t even know how to use the computer! They write their articles by hand and then they give them to “typers” to type them out for them. Outrageous no?
Lots of efforts should be exerted on the media in Jordan in order to improve it and the first thing that should be done is training journalists many of whom did not go to journalism schools, but just stumbled upon this career by chance or through some sort of an “inside” connection. It is a very depressing situation.
Also, al-Ghad is a fairly new paper. It is only 6 months old. So they lack the experience. But I guess this scandal gave them a lesson of a life time.
Um Jackie, Baghdad dweller posted a partial translation based upon the full translation posted here, just scroll down a bit. He also notes the fact that he based his translation from the wife’s post on this site and “fine tuned” it a bit. You’ll also find on the same link you provided a note from me, where I point out that he actually excluded a terribly important part of the full translation found here for reasons he details on his site.
But after I pointed them out, he went back and amended things to the joy of most of his readers. If you want to read the full and complete translation of the article published in al-Ghad — without refinement — you’ve come to the right place. It’s here in all its infamy. Click here or explore the site.
And Nas, my understanding of what is said right here is that the father says just what they say he said: dying outside the country yields martyrdom. That’s a red flag to me. Wouldn’t any Muslim know that is just plain BS and realize that perhaps this man is making up what he says and putting in that comment specifically as a red flag to highlight that he is being coerced in one way or another?
An insurgent bent on killing?
Kinda fits the US army’s slogan in Iraq.
We’re the US army, bent on killing all you ragheads…
Yep, fits alright…
Bagdad Dweller has posted a partial translation of the article in question.
Whether or not he was the murderer of the citizens of Hilla or the murderer of Shiites gathered in a mosque for wedding in Mosul, he was an insurgent bent on killing.
So, was there or was there not a divine wedding for Raed?
okay are there any press organizations in Jordan? Where do Arab journalists get their training? Are there any ethics classes or seminars taught? I am asking these questions because this journalist has lost all credibility. Are there no fact checkers at this paper? Come on, when a journalist lies, he or she has lied and cannot be trusted. I think every story written by the reporter needs to be checked now. Like I said, the smae thing happened with Jason Blair at NY Times. They found a story to be made up, and went and checked every single one of his other stories and they were all fake. Journalism needs a transformation every where. It really does. The fact like these incidents happen is sad, and there is no excuse for it. Reporters have a major responsibility. Something needs to be done.
Good start. I also hope the journalist who wrote the story was strictly reprimanded, or even better, fired.
I also agree with hubby, that this change of story and accounts sounds fishy. Perhaps the Jordanian gov. is so embarrassed that it forced it? This is not the right way to go. Denials, denials, denials, I am so sick of them.
Natasha, you have my apology for my first post on your site. I did not mean to direct my comments to you in person. You have integrity in your blogging, so I’m sorry if I have offended you.