Modern Discussion, according to its Web site, is a “media news cultural tribune to publicize objective and critical dialogues and opinions about the vital issues concerning the secularism, democracy, human rights, women’s rights, development, environment, human heritage in order to build a humane, civil and secular society that guarantee basic political, economic, sociological, cultural rights for humanity.” Kareem Amer regularly published his reformist articles on the Web site.
In support of Kareem, Modern Discussion has set up an online petition campaign titled, “There Is No Sanctity but the Human Being and His Freedom: A Solidarity Campaign for Liberal Writer Abdul Kareem Suleiman”. The petition states that, “We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the unjust sentence against liberal writer Abdul Kareem Suleiman, and we demand his immediate release.”
Highlights:
- Video shows Kareem leaving court room; he was heard being hit in the prisoners’ vehicle. (Quick link)
- Extremist lawyer and others cheer as Kareem enters prisoner vehicle. (Quick link)
- Red beating marks on Kareem’s face. (Quick link) [EDIT: Cannot be verified]
- Remarks made by neighbor. (Quick link)
- Kareem’s father to security officers: Be harsh on Kareem. (Quick link)
- Remarks made by the public outside the court room. (Quick link)
Blogger ‘Ana 7orr’ (‘I am free’), who attended Kareem’s court verdict session, provides a video of Kareem leaving the court room and getting into the prisoners’ vehicle. You can hear him scream after getting hit:
The video is 16 seconds long. Kareem’s face flashes by during the first few seconds. As he is being escorted toward the prisoners’ truck, you can hear people shouting out in Arabic, “Allahu akbar wa li Allah al-hamd!” (English: “Allah is the greatest, and to Allah we praise!”.
This chorus was lead by extremist prosecuting lawyer Mohamed Dawoud, who in a previous court session told The Associated Press: “I am on a jihad here … If we leave the likes of him [Kareem] without punishment, it will be like a fire that consumes everything.” (A ‘fire’ like this one, I suppose).
At 00:09, Kareem disappears into the truck and gets out of sight, and you can then hear him getting hit, which is followed by a painful scream (as was previously confirmed by The Associated Press).
Ana 7orr also confirms noticing that, as Kareem left the court, his face was red with beating marks.[EDIT: Cannot be verified]
Ana 7orr gives other details and pictures on another blog post: remarks made by Kareem’s father (according to a neighbor of Kareem’s), accusations made against Kareem, and what people outside the court generally thought of the case. Below is a summary of the relevant portions of his post:
The man in the above picture is prosecuting lawyer Mohamed Dawoud, who called for waging jihad against ‘the likes of Kareem’ and lead the cheering chorus when Kareem was entering the prisoners’ vehicle.
The media seemed focused on the man pictured above, Yasser Metwalli, who said he was Kareem’s neighbor. He stated that he engaged in a 45-minute discussion with Kareem, but failed to convince Kareem to abandon his views.
Yasser accused Kareem of being “funded” by people outside the country, and that human rights organizations contributed to his “corruption”.
Yasser also said that Kareem’s father asked security forces to be harsh on him so he can back out of his thoughts. His father also accused human rights organizations that stood by Kareem of corrupting him. He told Yasser that Europeans are sympathizing with Kareem only because he insulted Islam, and that if what Kareem said were pro-Islamic, no one would have sympathized with him, referring to Wafa Constantine as an example of that.
Kareem’s father also proposed to solve such “problems” of “corruption” by blocking Internet Web sites as Saudi Arabia does.
There were people outside the court who said that Kareem committed a crime and that he deserved to face a criminal court, whereas others argued that Kareem’s case is an ideological one, and that the courtroom is not the appropriate place to handle it. This was the opinion of many of Kareem’s sympathizers. However, many of his former sympathizers turned back on supporting him after they read some of his articles on Islam.
Bloggers being interviewed by the media outside the court.
Members of the public engaging in fierce discussions over Kareem Amer and the verdict. Some extremists insisted that Islam has only one interpretation, and some even went as far as calling for executing and stoning Kareem.
(Photo/camera date set incorrectly)
Security officials wait for Kareem to be lead outside the courtroom after having the verdict read out to him.
A couple of other pictures found elsewhere shows Kareem being lead out of the courtroom:
Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil in a shirt reading in Arabic: ‘prisoner investigation’ is escorted from court in Alexandria. Photograph: Nasser Nasser/AP
Is it logical for “restrictions” on “freedom” to exist? This inquiry comes to my mind whenever I find some advocates of liberalism in the Middle East contradicting themselves so they can avoid clashing with societal thoughts, and so they can attract people to their ranks without giving the slightest consideration of the absolute meaning of the principles that they call for. These principles, of course, contradict with the principles of the society and its inherited tenets.
Freedom, as I learned it, understood it, and believed in it, is the removal of all restrictions from the human being’s burden. Slavery, which is its antithesis, means the submission of the human being by imposing some restrictions on his life for the purpose of controlling him. Where restrictions are found, freedom disappears, and where freedom is found, the restrictions fall. This is obvious and does not require practical evidence, and it is illogical to object to it on the grounds that societal principles or religious beliefs must be taken into account. Either absolute freedom is our goal, or we be honest with ourselves and declare our hatred and rejection of it, and declare our preference to surrendering to restrictions over having freedom handed to us.
Freedom’s denial of restrictions does not mean that the human being has the complete freedom to do everything he is able to do. Being powerful does not mean that I am free to subjugate he who is less powerful than I am. For one of the most important principles of freedom is to not trespass on the limits of others’ freedoms; this is so that freedom will be meaningful, and not be merely a justification for the actions of those who take advantage of their power to subdue others. Freedom – coupled with responsibility – is a right for all human beings with no distinction, and in order to have this right implemented in a realistic picture, every individual must respect the freedom of others and not degrade it. The law is what organizes this matter, and prevents individuals from trespassing on each other in the name of freedom.
Which brings up an important point: The fundamental function of the law is to organize the relationships of individuals with each other within the society, and to protect their freedoms from being exploited or degraded. Do lawmakers have a right to impose on
others – on the freedoms of human beings – additional restrictions that have nothing to do with avoiding the trespassing of some individuals on the freedoms of others?!
For example: Does the law have the right to criminalize an individual’s action whose effect does not trespass the private life of his fellow man? And is it justifiable to impose on the citizen obligations, on the grounds of submission to the law, that in effect degrade his personal freedom? I think that this matter is not within the function that laws were created for, and hence, this is considered a departure of the law from the framework that was placed for it, and that is the protection of the freedoms of the individuals. And with that, it transforms from a tool of preserving individual freedoms to a new restriction on it, which has no benefit apart from subjugating the individuals for the sake of a new societal organization that sanctifies the law more than its sanctification of the individual (the deity).
The arrival of the individual preceded the formation of the societal organization, and this formation is what founded the law. And as is known, one of the most important functions that this organization was formed for is the protection of the rights of the individuals from degradation under the protection of the law. Therefore, it is the individual, whose arrival had preceded these legislations, who must enjoy sanctity and respect, and not the law (the follower), which is supposed to protect the rights of the individuals, not degrade these rights.
Regardless of whether this law is a custom, a religious legislation, or positivistic, it cannot, under any circumstances, be placed above human beings, and it cannot be pressed on them, on their desires, or on their wills in life. Laws are nothing but deaf, rigid provisions, whereas the human being is a mass of live emotions which we have no right to press on it this deaf entity, and we have no right to submit him through its provisions.
Verily, we must return to the beginning and define the function of the law in our lives. And before that, we must convince the human being of his individual sanctity, and that nothing surpasses him in importance and standing besides himself. Following that, the law is a follower, protector, and organizer of his life. It is not a tool of suppression with which whoever is behind it aims to create a new deity the human being will prostrate to and sanctify.
Kareem’s father talks to Al-Masree Al-Yawm (’The Egyptian Today’) on Kareem’s past, and accuses a feminist writer and a leader of the expatriate Copts of leading his son to his “heresy”. (Hat tip: Dalia).
The article is in Arabic. Here’s my translation, in full:
The Family of the Accused of Contempt of Religion Accuses Nawal El Saadawi and Adli Abadeer of Encouraging Him to Infidelity
Written by Naser El Sharqawy
20/2/2007
(Photo: The father of the accused.)
The family of Al-Azhar [University] student Muhammad Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, who is accused of contempt of religion, and whose verdict will be delivered by the Alexandria Criminal Court on the upcoming Thursday, has accused writer Nawal El Saadawi and Adli Abadeer, a leader of the expatriate Copts, of being behind his heresy and infidelity.
The father of the accused, an engineer in the Alexandria Directorate of Agriculture, asserted that his son was in constant touch with El Saadawi and Abadeer after he established an Internet Web site attacking the masculine society and women’s rights in Islam. He also constantly published articles on Coptic Web sites that contained insults to Islam and to the messenger [the prophet of Islam] - peace and blessings be upon him -.
His father added: “Following the publication of these writings, I requested that he desist from these thoughts so he does not get expelled from his studies at the Faculty of Sharia [Islamic law] at Al-Azhar. And indeed, a disciplinary hearing was held in the university and some scholars conversed with him. However, he insisted on his position and thus he was transferred to the Prosecutor. And when he refused to back down from his thoughts, he was referred to trial with the charge of contempt of religion.”
His father revealed that, when his son started attending university, he refused to live with students who listen to music.
His father also said that his son abandoned his studies, got interested in forming friendships through the Internet, and constantly visited Christian Web sites. After that, he was arrested following the events of the Moharam Bek church in Alexandria, because of articles he published commenting on the events of the sectarian sedition then. He was held for 18 days. Following his release, some Internet bloggers contacted him, and they convinced him that they were the reason he got out of prison.
His father asserted that after that [incident], his son initiated declaring his damaging opinions, to the extent that they were surprised with him informing them that he will openly break the fast in the end of the month of Ramadan. His father accused the human rights organizations for losing his son’s opportunity to declare his repentance, and that’s by their aiding and defending him.
The article is in Arabic. Here’s my translation, in full:
Family of Al-Azhar Student, Accused of “Contempt of Religion”, Disowns Him Before His Court Verdict Session
Written by Nabeel Abu Shal and Tamer Al-Sharqawy
18/2/2007
The family of Al-Azhar student Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, accused of “contempt of religion”, has disowned him before his court verdict session on the upcoming Thursday. His father, a retired mathematics teacher, has demanded applying the Sharia [Islamic law] ruling on him by giving him three days to repent, followed by having him killed if he does not announce his repentance.
The father of the Al-Azhar student, who is accused of contempt of the Islamic religion, harming the reputation of Egypt, and inciting to disrupt the peace and to overthrow the regime, has decided to rescind from boycotting his trial hearing sessions. [He has decided] to attend the court verdict session with his four brothers, who completely memorized the Holy Quran, to announce disowning the accused Abdul Kareem inside the court room, in order to reduce the embarrassment and pressure that civil rights organizations are applying on the court panel.
The father of the accused also described the organizations that are working on having his son acquitted as “monkey rights” organizations, in his own words. He also described his son as the “monkey” who has imitated the atheists of the West in their intellectual thinking.
The family also said that they will announce their disownment of their son on the Internet as well.
The Dean of Sharia in Al-Azhar University, which the student Abdul Kareem attends, had him attend a disciplinary hearing after he attacked the Islamic religion on the Internet, and spoke against the Messenger of Allah – peace and blessings be upon him – and the companions [of the prophet of Islam].
Egyptian prisoners depend on their family for basic necessities. Kareem has been disowned by his parents. Please help us make sure he is kept warm and fed by sending a secure donation through Paypal.
