Englishman in New York22 Feb 2007 10:29 am

An Egyptian court has sentenced an internet blogger to four years’ prison for insulting Islam and the president.

Abdel Kareem Soliman’s trial was the first time that a blogger had been prosecuted in Egypt.

He had used his weblog to criticise the country’s top Islamic institution, the al-Azhar university and President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.

His trial lasted five minutes.

No Tags

10 Responses to “Egypt Blogger Jailed, Four Years for ‘Insulting’ Islam and President Mubarak”

  1. on 23 Feb 2007 at 2:38 pm Simon

    That must of been one nasty insult. Did he tell them they stank like poopoo or something?

  2. on 26 Feb 2007 at 8:38 am ahmad sherif

    Hello to you and to your visitors, true thanks for your concern and support regarding Egyptian Bloggers. Here is also food for thought. Spreading it around and embedding it everywhere would be highly appreciated. Many thanks in advance. Ahmad.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbEM6soTHOA

  3. on 26 Feb 2007 at 2:13 pm Ermiyas

    This is what I can’t understand, had this blogger been a Russian President Bush will be on their case, but when it happens to be in Egypt, Ethiopia or those countries USA calls friend it is ignored.
    What a world we live in.

  4. on 26 Feb 2007 at 3:44 pm Simon

    Ermiyas, I’ve noticed that every time you comment on this blog you seem to be suggesting that Bush is behind some terrible conspiracy. Everything bad in this world is not Bush’s fault. Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong, but you always seem to miss the point. Bush, for all his myriad failings still represents hope and freedom when contrasted with the authoritarian Putin, the immoral Chinese or the tyrannical leaders of the Middle East. You need to think a bit more about what is upsetting you and why.

  5. on 27 Feb 2007 at 5:56 pm Ermiyas

    Simon,
    I am not accusing Bush of the entire problem in this world and I am not going to accuse USA because it is nothing to do with what most of the Americans would want.
    Yes, I am a critical of President Bush, but that does not mean he is the only person I put my finger on.
    Most problems that are happening in the world is connected with the current American administration refusal for a peaceful solution:
    Lebanon
    Somalia
    Palestine
    Iraq
    Now soon to be Iran
    When all this problems can be solved with a common sense by that I mean working with UN(the world).
    Please check the link: -
    http://www.miamiherald.com/578/story/24382.html
    Don’t get me wrong President Bush can do a lot for the world peace, first by starting to negotiate with Iran the same way as he did with North Korea.
    Enough ranting.

  6. on 28 Feb 2007 at 4:02 pm Simon

    Kim Jong-Il basically said, “give us truckloads of cash or we’ll threaten the security of the entire region.” And because they already have the military might to destroy Seoul, the US had no real choice but to cave. I would hardly use that as a great example in favor of negotiation. If the US caves in and pays every bloodthirsty tyrant who demands it, they’ll lose all their credibility.

    What kind of negotiation do you think would resolve the problems in Palestine? I can’t think of anything the US hasn’t tried. I really would like to know? I agree negotiation is a good tool for buying time and hoping things will resolve themselves, but the militant Islamists are a breed of their own. All they seem to want is death and destruction. I don’t see how you negotiate with that.

    I suppose we could keep negotiating until the get married, have a couple of kids and calm the hell down. You know, that might just work actually.

  7. on 01 Mar 2007 at 10:53 am pdberger

    I thought you both might be interested in this.

    In U.S. Overtures to Foes, New Respect for Pragmatism.

  8. on 01 Mar 2007 at 1:41 pm Ermiyas

    Paul : I heard about it yesterday morning on BBC radio five live, had they taken this approach before there would be no death to over 3000 US soldiers and hundred thousand Iraqi add to that the billion dollar they spent towards it.

    Simon: everyone knows Kim is a dictator; the only way to sort him out is via either Russia or China. I would have loved to have seen if the Bush administration went ahead and attacked, what will the consequences be?

  9. on 01 Mar 2007 at 1:53 pm pdberger

    …had they taken this approach before there would be no death to over 3000 US soldiers and hundred thousand Iraqi add to that the billion dollar they spent towards it.

    Ermiyas, how can you be so sure?

    If the US had pursued further negotiations over Iraq, who’s to say war would not have broken out anyway?

    And who’s to say that without Iraq US troops would not be dying elsewhere, in say Afghanistan, where the death toll keeps rising?

    I’m not defending the Iraq war. As I have said before, I joined demonstrations opposing it in the months prior.

    But, according to your logic, the world would be better off if the US spent all its time negotiating and kept its troops at home.

    Is that what you want?

  10. on 02 Mar 2007 at 11:51 am Ermiyas

    Afghanistan was a done deal, until president Bush decided to relocate them to Iraq and now he chnges his minds and sends moresoldiers. The Iraq war allowed the Taliban to re-group and strengthen it’s force.
    And I am not saying USA does not have the right to defend itself from enemies like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but the Iraq war was a mess first of all for th US force and secondly for the Republican base administrations.

Feed on comments to this Post

Leave a Reply