Put On Your Kdmoul, Othman!
By Amjad Farid Al-Tayeb
After all media cards were burned in the hands of what remains of the “Taqaddum/Sumood” coalition, the media illusionist found himself facing limited options in the wake of his bankruptcy. He resorted to rummaging through the drawers of the broke merchant, searching for any voice that could be weaponized to serve the new defensive narrative justifying the UAE’s involvement in the killing of Sudanese civilians. The plan is simple: anyone who opposes this criminality or objects to the destruction of Sudan and the displacement of its people across the globe is automatically branded as an “Islamist” or a “Muslim Brotherhood agent”!
It seems the search recently found its mark in Othman Fadlallah, editor-in-chief of New Horizons—the magazine of Hamdok’s friends. Praise be to God that it’s now just a “horizon,” for Abdel Khaleq [Mahjoub] must be turning in his grave in agony over what has been done in the name of his book.
No issue of Hamdok’s Friends magazine is complete without a piece by Al-Noor Hamad, the self-styled “great thinker,” who adorns the pages with rationalizations for the Rapid Support Forces’ crimes. He sees no issue in the killing of Sudanese, the rape of their women, or the looting of their property—so long as the Janjaweed are carrying out “a historical reckoning with the Islamists”! It’s as if Al-Noor Hamad has forgotten that he stands in a sea of Islamists, opportunists, and killers surrounding him on all sides. (And Mahmoud Mohamed Taha must be rolling in his grave over what his followers have done in his name.) Yet, Othman and Hamdok’s magazine-owning friends see no issue in this. “Retroactive resistance against Islamists” is easy in an age of political depravity—especially when one is tethered to the winning Emirati horse. These are hungry times.
In recent days, Othman Fadlallah continued his absurd antics, warning of the looming “Islamist threat” from Port Sudan, echoing Hamdok’s rhetoric, articles from The Jerusalem Post, and other Emirati mouthpieces. He aims to stoke Western fears of political Islam without burdening his mind—though perhaps he did—with a simple question: What will happen if this deception succeeds? How many more Sudanese will die or be displaced if the West, and a Trump-led administration, are incited against Sudan to shield the UAE’s crimes of murder, rape, and forced displacement?
And what of the Emirati airstrikes on the Merowe Dam, the Qadarif power station, Dongola, and other critical infrastructure? These warranted not even a murmur of protest from Othman and his cohorts. They remained silent as the dead, for to them, Sudanese blood is cheap, and devastation a game. Such nobility!
The irony is that Othman fails to grasp that those who fought the Islamists in the past did so because of the very damage they caused Sudan—the same kind of destruction that he and his companions now rush to justify. But never mind… this is the age of farce!
Othman reached dramatic heights in the climax of his “brilliant analysis” of the Umma Party’s factions, where he attempted to absolve the wealthier wing from their entanglement with the Janjaweed—a link that General Burma Nasir openly admitted—overlooking that this faction is the most deeply mired in the blood-soaked swamp. Even more absurd is his discussion of “war violations” to criticize the Port Sudan faction, without mentioning that, according to independent reports, 77% of these violations are committed by the Rapid Support Forces. But for Othman and company, that’s a forgivable sin—perhaps even a virtuous act.
The real comedy, though, was in his description of the third faction, referring to (Dr.) Al-Wathiq Al-Barir’s camp as “the historic party’s voice aligned with the December Revolution.” Such a brazen distortion of truth would make anyone who knows Al-Wathiq, the Umma Party, or anything about Sudan burst into laughter. What December Revolution is he talking about? What coup did Al-Wathiq oppose, when he was one of the architects of the Hamdok-military agreement of November 2021, and even part of the delegation that persuaded Hamdok to sign it (alongside Burma Nasir)?
Even more laughable is attributing to Al-Wathiq a stance advocating “ending the war and restoring the civil path,” while he was busy nominating his allies to head the civil administration of Al-Jazirah State after the Hemetti-Hamdok agreement of January 2024! By the way, what became of Al-Wathiq’s poor nominee, Sadiq Moya? Did your faction ever ask about him, Othman? Or is he just collateral damage—unworthy of mention in your patriotic promo about the Umma Party factions?
Othman’s article went beyond being a mere attempt to sell delusions. It was a comedic attempt to turn rotten fish into rosewater. As if Othman is saying to his readers: “Accept whatever nonsense we feed you—we’ll repeat it enough times, wrapped in pretty slogans, until you believe it!” But not even all the perfumes of Arabia can mask the blood on this little hand of yours, Othman.
So put on your kdmoul properly—its imprint is all too visible on your face!
