Kareem Amer, how dare you insult the president and Islam?

Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Suleiman (pseudo name: Kareem Amer) was sentenced yesterday for four years in prison for the crime of insulting the president and inciting hatred of Islam.

After such a sentence, Arabs still wonder why they are at the bottom on the humanity list? I am telling you people, we are nothing more than a property of the state and the religious institutions, put your head down, walk straight and stay silent or you will face the consequences. And for people such as Kareem, he will remain a symbol of courage in the face of intimidation and despotism. This is not the end of the story for him for sure.

Comments

[3zayez]

I am sure that the man was jailed for insulting the president rather than for his blind diatribes on religion. However, after a cursory perusal of his blog I firmly believe that the man deserves censure for his brazen and repugnant insults of Islam. Freedom of speech, in my opinion, must have bounds, and religion is one of them. I'm just glad he managed to insult the president as well to get what he deserves (albeit for the wrong reason).

[Aya]

See 3azayez, your attitude is at the heart of the problem. I think imprisoning Kareem for his personal views on religion represents a greater insult to Islam than anything else. Is Islam so weak and feeble it simply cannot stand criticism? If you have a problem with what he said, then write back and defend your opinion as a civilized person. What you are saying simply stands in opposition with the basic principles of freedom of expression no matter how you look at it.

[Forgetful]

Damn the day when Islam was cursed upon our world.

[al_miller]

After all this do you still think that the problem isn't Islam?

[eshda3wa]

its sad really, the state we are in, look at the replies, damn the day islam was cursed upon our world, well damn the day when ppl put the blame on a book rather than the ppl who abuse it.
i dont agree with kareem, but he has every right to critisize whoever he wants, like 3zayez said, im sure he was jailed for critisizing our freedom fighter, leader of arabs, light of our nation, cz as we all know he can do no wrong, and to imply otherwise, my oh my.
hope he gets thru it

[Forgetful]

Exactly, it's just a book! I don't get why people are so quick to get offended by it.

[Forgetful]

Al, the problems lies with ALL religons, not one religon hasn't shed blood at some point.

[3zayez]

Islam is not weak and feeble and it has withstood attacks far more well-planned than a blogger's poorly written diatribes. However, it is not Islam that I am worried about, it is Muslims (especially impressionable ones). I do not know if we stand on common ground regarding the issue of apostasy, but I firmly believe that an apostate who dies as an apostate without repenting will be eternally damned in hell. When a man such as Kareem invites people to commit apostasy and flaunts his utter disrespect to Allah and Islam, this causes two problems. First of all, many people may share his views yet are afraid of coming forward and vociferating these opinions and beliefs, and seeing a precedent will no doubt ease their anxiety. Second, many young and impressionable Muslims may read his drivel and actually be convinced by it. Now this may sound like old Muslim scholar rhetoric to you, but think about it. A 17 year old boy with a very weak foundation in Islam (very common unfortunately) reads something on the internet that convinces him to renounce Allah and Islam, has a car accident the next day and dies. In my belief, he will go to hell. For anyone who believes the same thing, censuring a man such as Kareem to save that 17-year-old far outweighs the benefits of a no-exceptions application of freedom of speech. I, for one, do not want Islamic equivalents of Friedrich Nietzche and Karl Marx to arise because of free speech, and I do not want mosques to become deserted like many European churches today. In conclusion, I am a firm advocate of free speech EXCEPT for the criticism of religion; I am an advocate of a free speech custom-tailored for Islam, and not imported as-is from the West. That is my opinion.

I apologize for the long comment and I thank you for your intelligent reply to my original comment (unlike the one sentence critiques of Islam I see above).

[Aya]

Forgetful, if you are in the mood for cursing, then I suggest we start with earlier times. Let's say when other religions were first introduced to this earth? History is littered with examples of heads rolling because some priest or a religious head got offended. And in order for us to be on the same page, please let me know which religion you consider a blessing? Waiting for your insights.

eshda3wa, at this age, ignorance is no bliss. If someone just picks up one religion and considers it to be the source of all evil, then this person should be immediately dismissed for lack of proper education, knowledge or rationality. I say, whoever wants to be an idiot, go ahead and give us something to laugh about.

3azayez, thank you for the following up on this as well. Although I do understand where you come from, I don't share your opinion on apostasy or the concept of freedom of expression. If you scroll back to your last response you will find statements such as "I firmly believe," "in my belief," etc. and this is a simple example of your personal right to free thought and belief. For some, these convictions might seem outrageous and unacceptable but since you were provided with a safe platform for expressing them, others should have the same right as well. Don't consider yourself to be the one with the higher moral ground since everyone else thinks the same about their own convictions. You must know that this is a fallacious argument with no merit at all.

You say that you are a believer in freedom of expression except when it comes to religion. But if we cannot discuss religion then how can we criticize/analyze its practitioners, interpreters, followers, etc. Even those who disagree or loath a certain religion are part of the reality that ought not be concealed because some are simply offended or threatened.

Also, if people stop going to mosques as you mention, then, this is their right granted to them by the religion itself (since Islam should be free from any compulsion) and by the virtue of being born free and capable of making choices. If someone wants to go to hell (the one you accept as true or real in this case) then let them go to hell, roast and get barbecued or whatever. What makes you think that you can tell them otherwise? Other than kind advice (when it is welcomed) no one has appointed you, or any one else for that matter, as a judge or a heaven/hell gatekeeper. Think about it.

[Forgetful]

3zayez, your idea of free speech isn't so free. You're free to critique other idealogies, but when it comes to your own you draw the line? As you said Islam withstood many attacks, so how can some blogger's criticism wind you up? Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzche were great thinkers, it's people like you that keep us in reverse. I did cross the line when I talked badly about your faith, I'm usually tolerant of others' beleifs, but it's kind of hard to show respect when followers of Islam are so quick to disrespect anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. Why is it so hard to live in a place, where Islam isn't shoved down your throat, where people celeberate great thinkers, writers, innovators of all beliefs. You are free to believe in whatever you want to believe, but keep in mind so are others.

[Forgetful]

"History is littered with examples of heads rolling because some priest or a religious head got offended."

I completly agree with you, and I don't consider any religon a blessing (see my second comment).

I was out of line, and I was inconsiderate, I do apologize for that. But I guess with the anonymity that the internet provides us, most take liberty with what they say.

[al_miller]

No one can please God without choosing him of their own free will and volition. People who only obey him because they were forced to are sent to hell, such as it is. Of course he probably gives them some time off for having been in hell on earth.

[abusinan]

Islam isnt the problem, but a whole lot of Muslims certainly are.

If you dont like it, dont read it. If freedom of speech was such a worry for the religion of Islam there wouldnt been tens of thousands of Westerners who benefit from freedom of speech, who have converted to Islam the last few years.

These type of people need to look to the West where there is freedom of speech. Look at how Islam flourishes here without official state protection and promotion.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West so it is VERY CLEAR that freedom of speech, rather than attacking or keeping down Islam, actually promotes it.

Freedom of speech=dawah, the facts and numbers prove it.

What are these guys so afraid of?

[aga]

I’m more than a little late to this thread, but I found the comments of 3zayez really interesting. Although I am not a Muslim, I am religious, and I can see where you are coming from and why you would carve out disrespect/condemnation of religion from the zone of free speech. I also think that I understand your admonition against importing free speech as it is practiced in the West. I would encourage you to develop your own “Eastern” system of free speech which protects religion, and hence people’s souls or their well being in the afterlife, while at the same time protecting individual expression and communication. Although I was born and raised in the West, and am happy with that state of affairs, I assure you that if you are successful, I will most definitely copy it and import it here as is. :)

You see, I don’t think that there is a workable solution other than very limited restrictions on free speech (e.g. shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, advocating violent overthrow of government etc). As a hypothetical matter, you and I may agree on certain principles, but we will not be able to agree on their application or their limitation. For example, you and I may agree on a rule forbidding the condemnation of religion or advocating apostasy. (In actuality, I do not believe in this, since I believe the benefit of critical examination, even condemnation, outweighs the risk of errant thought - especially when the subject is God). We support the rule on the grounds that you’ve previously stated, namely, weakly grounded and/or young seventeen year olds may be persuaded to reject their faith, and we may open the dike to a flood of people who join their voices together to advocate apostasy. So, for the good of those less sturdy or grounded souls, we will punish anyone who dares preach apostasy or who demeans the faith.

The basic problem, in my opinion, is that everyone has to be able to agree on the faith, what it means to condemn or improperly question the faith, and what the faith requires. You have to have a society that fundamentally agrees on the material, immutable principles of faith and those which are optional. For example, suppose that a number of believers reason that simply calling yourself Muslim is not enough to avoid a spot on the spit at the final barby. They reason that the law preventing the condemnation of the faith is grounded upon the protection of those weakly grounded individuals who may be lead astray to their everlasting destruction. They argue that the law simply doesn’t do enough, since in their opinion, simply calling oneself a believer is insufficient. They take a gander at your blog, view the humorous, but nevertheless displeasing (to Him) references to sexual behavior outside the bonds of marriage, and argue that you should be restricted in your verbal fun as others may be lead astray. They really don’t care what you think, or whether you actually engage in sex outside marriage, but they are concerned about the spiritual wellbeing of others. So, under their new rules, applying the same principles to which you yourself subscribe, you are free to believe what you want, you just can’t talk about it anymore to anyone. Its for society’s good, and the good of all of the innocents whom they fear your speech will corrupt.

My own view is that there is no perfect solution to the problems inherent in free speech. It isn’t a western or eastern issue. Those problems rest with the fact that it is flawed, imperfect humans who speak. However, the solution of restricting speech has even graver consequences, because those who create and enforce the restrictions are also flawed, imperfect humans. While we may agree in general that God is perfect, we won’t be able to agree on His Will, even if we use the same Book. We will dispute whether something He said was intended for all time, for a particular time, and even what He meant by it. Some of us humans will use those inherent loopholes to our personal advantage, and rather than seeking to protect the spiritual well being of our less grounded brethren, we will use their weakness to preach what the Almighty really meant, what he really requires, and what He has promised to do to them if they disobey what in fact are our commands. Better in my opinion to let everyone express their opinion than to leave expression and formation of opinion to those in power.

Aya wrote:

Don't consider yourself to be the one with the higher moral ground since everyone else thinks the same about their own convictions. You must know that this is a fallacious argument with no merit at all.

I do not agree with this statement. I’m not advocating arrogance, but in matters of morality and religion, I think that by definition one has to believe one is right, or that there is “right” behavior and “wrong” behavior. For example, I have to believe that my religion is correct (or at least the closest approximation to the truth), or I would (in a free society) change my religion to whatever I believed was the religion that most closely approximated the truth. The fact that others hold different beliefs or convictions and also believe that they are correct is not, in my judgment, a reason to not consider myself to be standing on higher moral ground. I am on higher moral ground, and if I thought the other person’s convictions were correct, I would move over to their higher moral ground.

This disagreement that I am trying to register may sound like quibbling over semantics, but I don’t think that it is. In my opinion it is only when we recognize this that we truly understand what tolerance means, as opposed to acceptance. In other words, I do not “accept” different moral or religious views as interchangeable, but I “tolerate” the expression and discussion of those different moral or religious views as necessary to a society which allows diversity and freedom. The fact that others may have different convictions than mine, does not mean that there is no right or no wrong; rather its means that one of us is right and the other wrong. From my perspective, in a free and diverse society, neither has to accept the other’s convictions, but they must tolerate them with "respect" - another word that has special definition in this context. I wish that I could provide an example to better illustrate this distinction and why it is important in my view, but unfortunately, the brain is starved for the evening meal. Great blog you have here!

[Forgetful]

" From my perspective, in a free and diverse society, neither has to accept the other’s convictions, but they must tolerate them with respect"

Great contribution aga, that was a great read!

[Dotsson]

Why didn't Adam and Eve use condoms?

[Aya]

Aga says:

"I do not agree with this statement. I’m not advocating arrogance, but in matters of morality and religion, I think that by definition one has to believe one is right, or that there is “right” behavior and “wrong” behavior."

Well, yes, most religious people believe that they hold the key to the ultimate truth. But my point is that this cannot be the basis of an argument. You can't say: I am right because I believe so and so...As I said, this is a weak argument.

[AGA]

Aya:

I would add to your comment that all people, to varying degrees, believe they "hold the key to the ultimate truth" This is true regardless of the level of religiosity, at least in my experience, though the topics differ. For example, I know an agnostic female feminist who holds the key to ultimate truth about what it truly means to be female. Her arguments are nothing more than "beliefs", and the only difference is that her supporting authority is not some ancient Text, but the texts of others espousing the same views.

I guess that my point, as opposed to your point, is that most arguments are (at their core) over beliefs and that we dress them up to cover the "naked" belief foundation. What I am saying is that beliefs are in fact the basis of an argument, and there is no way to escape it.

These are hard concepts/thoughts for me to explain in writing. Let me try by using the example of "freedom of speech". You've refered to it as a "principle". You wrote: "What you are saying simply stands in opposition with the basic principles of freedom of expression no matter how you look at it." (BTW, I agree with you.) I have also heard it expressed elsewhere that freedom of speech is a basic human right which is to be defended and protected at all cost.

Where did this concept come from? How is it any different from any religious "principle" (apart from the fact that proponents aren't arguing, "God says . . .")?

I think that 3zayez's argument is that, given his belief about the long term effects of apostacy, speech advocating apostacy should be prohibited. It is a valid argument which admittedly turns upon a belief. I personally do not agree with it, but it is because I hold different beliefs - particularly with respect to the role of government and who should control the market place of ideas and their expression.

I don't disagree with your statement, "You can't say: I am right because I believe so and so . . ." I just didn't hear 3zayez as saying that or your original comment as saying that.