AKEED, Amman

From a media perspective, we are before a special case. A lot has been published about it in dozens of short news items. Though brief, each news item contained some truth and some falsehood. It is the case of the detention of writer Ayman Otoom, author of the novel "Hadeeth al-Junud" (The Story of the Soldiers), besides the implications of the TV program that was broadcast on Al Jazeera about the novel and that considered it to be banned in Jordan.

The AKEED Monitor followed the case in its two dimensions: The first dimension is in connection with the detention of the writer and the way local and regional media handled this story, while the second has to do with the program Kharij al-Nass (Departing From the Text). Akeed has established that the program contains professional violations and confuses truth with falsehood.

Detention of the Writer

On Monday afternoon, 5 December, news about the "detention" of writer Ayman Otoom broke after a post he had written on his page on Facebook, in which he announced that he was detained and that the reason had to do with his novel, titled "Hadeeth al-Junud." Many news sites hastened to publish this as a short news item. Afterward, some sites started gradually to quote a security source as saying that holding Otoom was because he had failed to pay a fine in a previous press and publications case and that he had the choice of paying the fine or facing referral to the public prosecutor.

Meanwhile, some electronic sites recalled an episode broadcast by the Qatari Al Jazeera TV as part of a program on books that are banned in Arab states. The episode was devoted to the novel "Hadeeth al-Junud," which it considered to be banned in Jordan. Some of these sites reported that the reason for the detention was due to the content of the episode.

The subject received considerable attention on pages of social media, especially after the page of the writer had announced that the page was the only source of credible information as far as the writer was concerned. Indeed, activists and electronic sites started reporting what was published on the page until noontime on the next day when some details emerged to the effect that there was a judicial ruling concerning a fine, that the writer had challenged the ruling and the case was sent back to the judiciary, and that it was a difference charge.

Sites Adopt Different Reasons for Detention of Writer

Electronic sites adopted different reasons for the detention of the writer. Some of them adopted the story of the "security source" about the "fine." Others said that it had to do with the episode of Al Jazeera TV about the novel. Some sites said that the reason had to do with the episode of Al Jazeera TV about the novel, while in other cases adopting what the page of the writer posted about the charge of "insulting religious sentiment," without referring to the fine. We should mention that some sites published more than one reason. To make it easy for readers, we included below some links of examples of the coverage published during the first 24 hours:

Arrest of Novelist Ayman Otoom After Interview on Al Jazeera TV

After Arrest of Otoom…Hashtag# Hadeeth al-Junud Tops Twitter Jordan

Security Agencies Detain Writer Otoom

Security Agencies Detain Novelist Ayman Otoom

Security Source Reveals Reason for Arrest of Writer Otoom

Security Explains Reason for Detaining Novelist Ayman Otoom

Security: Detaining Novelist Otoom Against Background of "Press and Publications" Case

Ayman Otoom Wanted by Prosecutor General

Security Source: 5,000-Dinar Fine Reason for Detaining Novelist Otoom

Reason for Arrest of Ayman Otoom

Security Explains Reasons for Detaining Novelist Otoom

Security Agencies Detain Novelist Ayman Otoom

Otoom Accused of "Insulting Religious Sentiment"

Otoom Brother: Ayman Detained on Charges of Insulting Religious Sentiment

Intensity of News; Lack of Information

For around 24 hours, observers had been somewhat confused because of the overlap of headlines. During this period, no media outlet had tried to present a clear picture through professional methods, which are based on the rules of verification. The coverage lacked relevant sources of information, which were cited in the news. Perhaps, key of these sources is the Media Commission, which people can approach to inquire about the case of publishing that caused the detention; judicial agencies, which people can approach to inquire about the case and its history, substance, and charge; the publisher of the novel, who is sentenced in the same case and who incurred the same fine to inquire about the novel or about his inclusion in the sentence; or Al Jazeera TV, which people can approach to inquire if the said episode had any role in the detention of the writer. There are other questions that could have clarified some aspects of the case to enable media outlets to deliver correct information. Meanwhile, none of the sources of information took the initiative to announce its position.

However, the printed newspapers that were published on the third day after the issue was raised (Wednesday, 7 December) carried statements by the director of the Media Commission, which explained the legal status and nature of the charge.

What Is the Real Charge?

A new element was introduced into media coverage as a story was published to the effect that the writer had challenged the ruling and was subsequently released. This is related to the description of the charge. The attorney of the writer was quoted as saying (and then the writer himself said in a video) that the charge brought against him was "insulting religious sentiment." News sites published this without going back to the court ruling, which said that the charge was fomenting racial and religious discord in contravention of Article 150 of the Penal Code and the substance of Article 42 of the Press and Publications Law.

The court ruling, signed by Judge Dr. Nassar Mohammed Halalmeh, indicates that the charge (fomenting racial and religious discord) was based on descriptions, linked to fomenting sedition, of Jordanian citizens from a certain background in the novel. It was also based on the characterization of security personnel in a manner that fuels strife and dissension. This provides all the pillars of the crime of fomenting racial discord, as stated in the court ruling, which did not include the phrase insulting religious sentiment.

Publisher Maher Kayyali, who was tried in the same case, along with his son, denied knowledge of the ruling. In a telephone call with AKEED, he said: "It seems that a ruling was issued to fine Ayman." However, almost two years before, on 26 January 2015, the court had decided to fine the three persons by 5,000 dinars each.

Opinion of Media Commission: Book Not Banned

Mohammed Qtaishat, director of the Media Commission, said in a telephone call with AKEED: "The public prosecution charged publisher Maher Kayyali and his son, Abdel-Wahhab Kayyali, as owners of Al Faris Publishing, Distribution, and Advertizing Company, in addition to Ayman Otoom, author of the novel, with fomenting religious and racial discord in contravention of the provisions of Article 150 of the Jordanian Penal Code and the substance of Article 42 of the Press and Publications Law.

A ruling was issued on 26 January 2015 by the Amman Criminal Court of First Instance, convicting the accused and sentencing each one of them to a fine of 5,000 dinars. The ruling was based on the novel "Hadeeth al-Junud" in view of the racism and regionalism that it instigates.

The ruling was issued in absentia. The accused, including the author, were informed of the date of the court session, but they failed to appear (this was stated in the court ruling). This means that the ruling can be challenged at the same court that issued it and appealed in front of an appeals court. Since the accused did not present their defense, there will be a retrial.

On the controversy over news of the detention of the writer, Qtaishat says that "since the fine, which is in the amount of 5,000 dinars, goes to the treasury of the state, there is a memorandum of a notification order, through which the convicted person is informed that he has been fined in order to report to the enforcement department at the public prosecution."

According to page three of the court ruling (see the photocopies below), there was a public trial in the presence of the delegated public prosecutor and the absence of the accused, who was informed that there was a case against him, but he did not show up in court. Since a ruling was issued, the public prosecution has the duty of implementing it. The notification order requires that the police inform the wanted person that a fine has been imposed on him. In accordance with the legal measures that the police are required to take, per the Criminal Procedure Law, the police may keep the accused in custody until he is moved to the custody of the public prosecutor where he can choose either to pay the fine or challenge the ruling.

Concerning the implications of the novel, Qtaishat said that Article 35 of the Press and Publications Law gives full freedom to any author or publisher of a book to print and publish in the Kingdom without the prior approval of the Media Commission. This is in line with international standards of freedom of opinion and expression. This removes any form of prior censorship on printing books. However, if the director of the Media Commission finds that a book, printed and distributed in the Kingdom, contains anything that runs counter to the provisions of legislation in force, then the director has to go to the judiciary to obtain a decision to ban the circulation of the book or confiscate it. The judiciary has the final say.  

Ayman Otoom printed, published, and distributed his novel without any censorship. Several ceremonies were held to launch and sign the novel inside and outside the capital, Amman. The book is not banned and is available. The criminal ruling that was issued has nothing to do with confiscation or ban.

Attorney of the Writer

To learn about the position of the party accused in the case, AKEED contacted Mohammed Shibli, attorney of the writer, and inquired about what was attributed to him, and what the writer repeated, to the effect that the charge was "insulting religious sentiment," while the original papers of the case state that the charge was "fomenting racial and religious discord." The attorney answered that the article on which the charge was based was indeed Article 150 of the Penal Code, but that it was customary, administratively, that it refers to "religious sentiment." The provisions of the Penal Code show that the expression "insulting religious sentiment" is found in Article 278, but not in Article 150. Meanwhile, the writer and publisher were charged with contravening Article 150.

AKEED contacted Dr. Sakhr Khasawneh, who is specialized in media legislation. He said: There is nothing called "customary" because the rule says that there can be no independent opinion where there is an explicit text and no crime or punishment except based on a text. The two articles have two different texts, and violating one of them is a charge that is different from the other. No statement may be made to the media except based on the text of the article that was explained to the accused.

Al Jazeera Episode: Scope of Falsehood, Truth

On 13 November 2016, the Qatar-based Al Jazeera TV broadcast an episode of a program titled "Kharij al-Nass" about the novel "Hadeeth al-Junud" by Jordanian writer Dr. Ayman Otoom. The episode was titled "Hadeeth al-Junud: Banned Novel About Yarmouk University in Jordan."

"Kharij al-Nass" is a program that focuses on books and literary and artistic works that are banned in the Arab world. The episode introduced the novel that was published in 2014, saying that it was banned. However, the novel was distributed in Jordan and received noticeable attention. Al Jazeera TV itself had previously covered a debate ceremony, which included the signing of the novel, in 2014. The episode presented several video testimonies within the context of discussing the ban on the novel.

AKEED watched the episode and contacted a number of persons who appeared in the video clips. It turned out that the episode contained a number of professional violations. The persons who were interviewed confirmed knowing that the novel was not banned. They said that the recording of the interviews with them was not for the purpose of doing this episode in particular and that they were not informed about this. Some of the sentences they uttered were taken out of context and used in the episode. Besides, there is another violation in that a news story titled "Jordan Bans Hadeeth al-Junud Novel" was attributed to the Jordanian Al Ghad daily, while it was originally published on "Al Jazeera Net," which is affiliated with the same channel, as shown in the screenshot below.

The episode is not a production by the channel and bears the signature of another company, which means that Al Jazeera TV either bought it or collaborated in its production. However, this does not exempt the channel of responsibility, especially since the last shot in the video carries a statement to the effect that copyright is for Al Jazeera TV.

Dr. Jaser Shubaki

Jaser Shubaki, professor of physics, was shown speaking in a video clip. He was one of the witnesses to the period that the novel speaks about, in his capacity as a teacher at Yarmouk University. In a call with AKEED, he said that around three years ago, a number of young people called him and informed him of their plan to film a program about the incidents that occurred at Yarmouk University in 1986, and not about the novel "Hadeeth al-Junud." He adds: "I was very pleased with the subject of the program since it sheds light on important historical events, which did not receive great attention from the press. I cooperated with the young people without knowing the entity that will broadcast this program."

Shubaki said: "The team did not ask me any question about the novel of Ayman Otoom. I was surprised to see the episode in this format as the subject was taken out of its original context." He added: "I read Otoom"s novel and attended its signing ceremony in Amman. It is a literary novel. It has nothing to do with history and narration of events. I also confirmed personally from several parties that the novel was not banned and was available."

Novelist Hashem Gharaibeh

In an interview with AKEED, Jordanian novelist Hashem Gharaibeh, who appeared in some clips of the TV episode, said: "Almost more than six months ago, an art production company contacted me to talk about another novel by another Jordanian writer, who is Ahmad Zaatari. The title of the novel was "Al Inhina Ala Juthat Amman (Leaning Over Body of Amman)." Indeed, I had earlier received the novel from its author. I spoke about it for almost one hour with the company staff."

At the end of the discussion, according to Gharaibeh, the team asked a question about the novel of Ayman Otoom. The answer was: "Otoom is a fellow novelist. His novel is a bestseller. I do not wish to talk about it." Afterward, Gharaibeh spoke in general about his rejection of the decision to ban any book, regardless of the circumstances. He added: "Banning books was not something that concerned me since the subject of the episode was the novel by Zaatari."

Publisher Jehad Abu Hashish

Publisher Jehad Abu Hashish, who appeared in some clips of the episode as a witness to the university incidents, told AKEED over the telephone that the recorded interview with him was conducted concerning the university incidents and that he was not asked any questions about banning the novel. He said that he did not know whether the novel was officially banned or not, but that he understood the motives for the editing.

Dr. Abdullah Tawalbeh

The fourth person we contacted among those who appeared on the TV program is Dr. Abdullah Tawalbeh, deputy director of the Jordan Media Commission. The video had a caption that introduced him as deputy director of press and publications. In his interview with AKEED, he said that he was filmed for around 40 minutes with young people who had told him that the subject was about "books and methods of handling them in the Arab world."  

Tawalbeh added: "Before the recording started, the team commended Jordan, saying that it was one of the best countries in terms of freedoms. The discussion during the episode was generally about censorship, the Press and Publications Law, and public freedoms vis-à-vis publications and books."

However, Tawalbeh said that the team asked a question in passing about Ayman Otoom in relation to banning the novel. Tawalbeh answered: "The novel is not banned in Jordan. We as Media Commission cannot ban any book. The law does not allow us to do that. We refer violating books to the judiciary. The law has the final say. The judiciary has so far not made a decision on this novel."

By broadcasting the episode, the channel committed a number of professional mistakes, key of which is trying to bend the truth by seeking to prove that the novel was banned, which is not true. It also interviewed persons about subjects that are removed from the theme of the media product, which suggests obtaining information by unprofessional methods. This is in addition to taking some statements out of context and inserting them in other places, which is contrary to professional standards of media ethics.