Truth’s Face | Ibrahim Shglawi Murtada Al-Ghali… Criticism or Trial?

I read Dr. Murtada Al-Ghali’s article, “Sumoud’s Dilemma… Or the Nation’s Dilemma with the Islamists?” as a response to my article, “The Sudanese Dialogue… and Sumoud’s Dilemma.” My disagreement with him is not the issue, for criticism is a right, and differences in reading political positions are natural. But the problem begins when the response no longer addresses the text that was written, but rather another text built on assumptions and then subjected to judgments. Here, the question becomes legitimate: are we facing a critique of the idea, or a trial of the writer?

The doctor referred to the writer as “one of the regular writers,” although the article was published under my name and title. That is not the central issue, even though attributing an opinion to its author is a requirement of professional integrity when the text is being refuted. More importantly, the name was absent from the beginning of the response, while political classifications were present, attributing to the writer positions he did not write. This is not merely a formal matter, because it shifts the discussion from testing the argument to testing the identity of its author.

Let us be precise: I did not say that “Sumoud” is an agent of the UAE, nor did I say that it supports the Rapid Support Forces, nor did I say that it demands political immunity, nor did I assert that it would work to sabotage the dialogue through foreign forces. What I presented was a reading of declared positions, questions about the impact of external references on the independence of Sudanese decision-making, and possibilities for the course of the dialogue. I was also clear that accusations do not become convictions except through investigation and the judiciary. This is a principle that does not change with changing individuals or organizations.

As for the title, “Sumoud’s Dilemma,” it was not a judgment of condemnation, but rather a political question: does its objection concern the conditions, guarantees, and mechanisms of the dialogue, or does it extend to rejecting the dialogue in principle? The question is legitimate, just as “Sumoud’s” right to reject the dialogue is legitimate. I see no contradiction between the two, for political analysis does not negate its position, just as its right to reject does not exempt it from criticism.

It is noteworthy that developments have begun to reinforce the credibility of the fourth scenario I presented in “The Sudanese Dialogue… and Sumoud’s Dilemma,” based on the possibility of internal reviews within “Sumoud” as the dialogue process develops. The position of Dr. Mariam Al-Sadiq Al-Mahdi, in her assertion that rejecting dialogue alone does not create an alternative, and that conditions require mutual commitment, represents practical evidence supporting this possibility. This does not mean that the scenario has materialized or that “Sumoud’s” position has been settled; rather, one of its indicators has begun to appear in reality, confirming the validity of reading possibilities.

Likewise, I did not say that the dialogue should begin by excluding “Sumoud.” Rather, beginning with those who are present, while keeping the door open to those who have chosen not to participate, may be a practical option, provided that the mechanism proves its independence and integrity. Dialogue does not need a prior consensus in order to begin, but it does need rules that ensure it does not become a cover for the will of one party, or a platform for excluding another.

Here, the professional distance from which I proceed becomes clear. I do not write in defense of “Sumoud” or in hostility toward it, nor do I write in defense of the authorities or against them. I deal with the positions of political forces as material for analysis, and I place them all before the same questions: what is the source of the position? What is its reference? What is its impact on the state? And what consequences may result from it for the course of war, peace, and transition? These questions do not change with the changing names or positions of political forces.

From the same standpoint, I have spoken about the National Congress Party, the Islamic Movement, the Communist Party, and others. My principle is one: no exclusion on the basis of political affiliation, and no immunity from the law on the basis of political affiliation. Whoever is proven to have committed a crime should be held accountable before the judiciary, and whoever has not been proven to have committed a crime should not be punished merely because of their affiliation. A state that makes political identity a substitute for justice does not establish democracy; rather, it reproduces exclusion under new names.

We may disagree about the army, the revolution, the dispersal of the sit-in, the war, the Quartet, and the dialogue, and all of these are legitimate issues for discussion. But it is not right to use these issues to add positions to a text that its author did not express, and then hold him accountable for them. The difference between possibility and accusation, between question and judgment, and between analysis and condemnation, is the essence of responsibility in political writing.

The reader has the right, before asking: who is the writer? And to which side does he belong? To ask a simpler and more important question: what did he write? And is his argument right or wrong? For ideas, as you know, Doctor, do not gain their validity from the affiliation of their authors, nor do they lose it merely because we disagree with them.

Therefore, I do not see the issue as being between Murtada Al-Ghali and Ibrahim Shglawi. The issue is broader than that: how do we manage our differences in a country exhausted by war and polarization? If we want a genuine Sudanese dialogue, we must first practice the rules of dialogue in our writing: to disagree without treason, to criticize without classification, and to read the text as it is, not as we want it to be.

I do not claim to possess the truth, nor do I seek a political certificate from anyone. I write, analyze, raise questions, and leave the reader the right to judge. And if what I have written is open to criticism, then criticism is welcome; indeed, the strength of an idea is measured by its ability to withstand criticism. But when a text is reshaped, and then its author is put on trial for what he did not say, then the reader has the right to ask: Murtada Al-Ghali, Professor of Media, is this criticism or a trial?

And #Truths_Face remains as it should be: a space for truth and dialogue, not an arena for the courts of political and media hostility. Sudan needs a discourse that weighs its words as carefully as it weighs its positions, and that appeals to law and reason rather than treason and exclusion. Therefore, we affirm: weapons belong to the state, politics to elections, crimes to justice, and the decision to the people.

May you remain in good health and well-being.

Thursday, 3 September 2026 Shglawi55@gmail.com