Free the Egyptian blogger! But...

It's nice to see everyone raising their voices to protest the sentencing of Egyptian blogger Abdel Karim Nabeel to four years in prison.  International criticism of escalating Egyptian repression can only be good, whether the criticism is official or NGO or public.   I add my voice to those who call for a revisiting of the verdict and for his release from prison. 

At the same time, I can't help but note that Nabeel is far from the only political activist in Egyptian jails right now.  The Egyptian regime is engaging in an unprecedented crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.  Hundreds of its members have been arrested and referred to the notorious state security courts, their businesses closed down and their bank accounts frozen, without even a trace of due process.   Some Muslim Brothers are even bloggers, if that's what it takes to get people to care.  Because not many people seem to. 

This selective outrage, where Westerners care about one anti-Islamist blogger but can't be bothered about equally arbitrary and illiberal repression of hundreds of Islamists, only reinforces general skepticism that this isn't really about freedom, human rights, or democracy. It's just like the American focus on the release of jailed liberal politician Ayman Nour as a litmus test for the Egyptian regime (one which it continues to fail, by the way, without seeming to suffer the slightest penalty).  I can not exaggerate how many times I hear from Arabs and Muslims that America's campaign against Hamas after it won fair elections and its blind eye to Mubarak's campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood proves once and for all the fundamental hypocrisy of its democracy talk.   I am not criticizing anyone for rallying to Nabeel's or Nour's defense.  They should.  But they should also see this as part of a comprehensive regime crackdown on Egyptian political opposition, with the attack on the Muslim Brotherhood the leading edge of the regime's anti-democratic backlash.   People who claim to care about Egyptian reform, democratization, and human rights should take a slightly wider view of the problem than the travails of one anti-Islamist blogger or one liberal politician.   

Comments

[SP]

I agree with almost all of what you've said, but do think that this case could turn the spotlight on more generalised state repression that has been easy to ignore in the West thus far because it applied mainly to Islamists. Al Jazeera is reporting that the CIA-kidnapped Egyptian cleric showed up at Kareem's trial and made statements about the need for both Egypt and the US to release political prisoners - the latter from Guantanamo.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F784070C-B6DD-49C5-8470-84FBB8C2367C.htm

[Mike]

I think the general point to be made about the kind of selective coverage you talk about, whereby hundreds of Muslim Brothers are arbitrarily jailed and tortured and such, shows that people, especially in the U.S., tend to dismiss the massive political repression of people with Islamist views, even if they are peaceful (see Tariq Ramadan, an excellent historian of Muhammed, who was banned from both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia because he tells people that Islam doesn't fit the Saudi Arabian Wahhabist example, and that Muhammed's life was an example of respect for women and that he was peaceful and such.

Anyway, I think that the main reason that Egypt is becoming steadily more repressive under Mubarak is that now with Iraq, the U.S. is in no position to force Egypt to undergo real (as opposed to cosmetic) change in the direction of a representative government. Also, I think that it's very important that all of us, thinkers, intellectuals, etc., stress the need for representative governments that do not commit grave human rights abuses, and for self-determination more generally. "Western-style" democracy has already been put to shame in the eyes of many in the region, and the notion of forcing this down anyone's throat is insane, is absolutely contrary to the definition of democracy.

I hope that the Egyptian government releases and fairly tries these bloggers, but I'm not holding my breath. What is in our power, however, is to put pressure on our government in terms of providing aid to Egypt in exchange for basic political reform and integration of the opposition.

Anyway,

[Alaa]

well said Abu

and another thing, by selectively protesting the arrest of people like AbdolKarim and ignoring the rest you actually hurt them and hurt the locals who are trying to defend them, cause the normal reaction to this double standard is to assume the political prisoner in question is just an opportunist working for "the west".

oh and please don't write letters to congressmen asking them to interfere in court cases in Egypt, that will never achieve anything and will only provide fodder for the state and the demagogues. if you have to write letters to congressmen (as if that ever works) ask them to stop sending aid to egypt, or deny Gamal mubarak his lollypops or something

[MG]

Alaa, campaigns to lobby Congress about rights abuses in Egypt usually work by asking reps to make symbolic or significant cuts in US aid to Egypt anyway, there *is* no mechanism to interfere in court cases directly. The dilemma is that when you pick one case or person, it works better in the US political process (and for human rights groups' campaigns) because it's concrete and you can point to a result at the end of it (getting the person freed) whereas larger campaigns to protest repression and autocracy and cut aid are harder to get people to sign on to because they are less concrete and more caught up in multiple strands of US foreign policy. So yes, while it would be good to take a more general approach rather than giving people cause to see particular activists as "US tools," it's also less workable in the US context.

[John Palubiski]

You're missing an important difference when comparing this blogger with jailed Muslim Bros. He harmed no one, advocated the death of no one; he merely described Islam as he saw it.

The blogger, then was sentenced merely for "insulting" Islam and its founder.

The Muslim Brotherhood is juuuust a little different. They were involved in Sadat's assasination because of his peace deal with Israel and they have committed acts of violence on more than one occasion, and so at least some of them actually DO belong in prison

The blogger's arrest, then, is a much more grievious injustice. He is being imprisoned because of his IDEAS and not because of his ACTS.

You cannot, consequently, conflate the imprisonnment of organised, violence-prone thugs with the incarceration of a non-violent blogger simply because that blogger expressed truthful but unpopular views.

There's a world of difference between the two.

Were that NOT the case, dozens of Brotherhood members would be rushing to his aid, they'd be defending his right to denouce the excesses of some Islamists and even Islam itself. That's something we're not seeing and never going to see, though.

[Expat98]

Mr. Aardvark, I agree that America's democracy talk is hypocritical. But think about this for a minute. Do you really want Egypt to be a democracy? Because if it were then these fundamentalist Islamist types who are being jailed by the regime would be in charge. And what do you think the fate of this anti-Islamist blogger would have been if they were in charge, hmm? He probably would have been beheaded or something.

[John Palubiski]

Expat98, if you want the straight dope on what's happening in Egypt ask a Christian Copt. His arrest is due, in part, to the honest and accurate descriptions of attacks against the country's indigenous Christians that were published on his blog.

A victory, even in free, democratic elections, for the MB would spell disaster for Egypt and indeed the whole region.

And if the MB did take power, then free elections would become a thing of the past; all candidates, no matter their political orientation, would have to be approved by a governing council, like we see in Iran.

The economy, already bad enough, would head in the direction of that of Cuba.

The Brotherhood are utopian dreamers, longing for the return of a golden age that never, ever existed. It's a reactionary programme borne of an inability to adapt to and embrace modernity. That vision, that return to "innocence", as we've seen time and again since the french revolution, inevitable involves endless purges, purifications and cleansings when expressed in political action.

[aardvark]

John -
Believe me, I'm well aware of the MB's program and history. But there's a huge difference between wanting the MB to win elections and wanting the Egyptian government to respect basic human and political rights. The MB cadres - or rather alleged MB - being arrested and harrassed deserve due process, civil trials, and basic legal protections just like Karim does. If they are proven to be involved in violence, then they should be prosecuted - but to simply jump by association from "I don't like the MB political programme" to "this alleged MB should be thrown in jail without a serious trial" is to sell human rights and democracy down the river. It really is indivisible... you're not going to get repressive against those you don't like and liberal towards those you do.

[John Palubiski]

Yes, yes, our concern for human and political rights.

If they are proven to be involved in violence, then they should be prosecuted.

If? IF?

Murder is a form of violence and I just stated that The Brotherhood was "involved" in Sadat's murder.

For you to conflate a blogger jailed for merely describing the violence committed against the country's Christians....who are the Egypt's INDIGENOUS inhabitants and who number some 10,000,000 people.... by rioters screaming Islamic slogans, to attempt to even compare that to thugs advocating murder is a preposterous and obscene idea.

You're only going up to bat, and somewhat belatedly at that, for this blogger so that the Muslim Brotherhood...whose ideology is the antithesis of ALL human rights.... can be presented in the more sympathetic role of "victim".

The blogger is a true political prisoner; the Brotherhood fellas, on the other hand, would, if released into society, cause a great deal of harm to large numbers of people.

They are not so much incarcerated as they are in "quarantine".

Deluded typhoid marys whose noxious ideological infection and nostalgia for pipe-dream utopias would bring the whole country to its knees and perhaps even precipitate a foreign intervention.

You're obviously against American intervention...you probably have nightmares about eating Big Macs at Disneyworld.... so why support movements that would create regional instability ( perhaps even starvation) thereby provoking the Yanks?

[jr786]

Palubiski writes: The Muslim Brotherhood is juuuust a little different. They were involved in Sadat's assasination because of his peace deal with Israel and they have committed acts of violence on more than one occasion, and so at least some of them actually DO belong in prison

The first part, being involved in Sadat's assasination is news to me; as I recall Sadat was sypmathetic to the Brothers and it was Islamic jihad that killed him. No matter, they're all the same, right? The rest is neo-colonial Aipac-speak, the kind that, in a different form, originally gave rise to the Brotherhood. They make violence. So? Apparently, only the White Christian and Jew have the right to make violence against Muslims in the Middle East.

The Muslim can be any kind of Muslim he wants, as long he is our kind of Muslim: thoroughly modern, not too woggy and more than willing to accept his status as chai boy.

Whatever their faults, the Brotherhood is about being proud to be Muslim, not about kissing the backsides of non-Muslims who insist they have the best interests of the Muslims at heart. Right - like in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan...

[aardvark]

John, the Muslim Brotherhood was most definitely not responsible for Sadat's murder - that's a simple matter of historical record. And many of the alleged MB arrested right now weren't even born in 1981, making their collective responsibility a bit hard to establish. But you do a fairly nice job of illustrating my original point, so I'll leave it at that.

[John Palubiski]

You haven't addressed my point, Aardvark.

The blogger was arrested for criticising the aggressions and violence committed against the country's Christians. He describes Muslim fanatics attacking people looting shops and stealing.....booze no less!

And as for the events in 1981? What the hell would you even know. YOU weren't even born!

The Brotherhood are a bunch of wasted fanatics spouting misogyny, homophobia and Jew-hatred, and longing for a world that exists only in their minds.

If these nutjobs ever take over Egypt and other neighbouring states, it will create a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions.

A combox is not the venue for discussings Egypt's intensifying problemes ( both demographic and hydrological), but just let me say this: unless the borderbundt is capable of shooting lakefuls of de-salinised water AND condoms out their arses, Egypt will be toast.

The place is so overcrowded it can no longer even feed itself. The land of "Tut" and the breadbasket of the Roman Empire is barely one harvest away from starvation.

Guys like you won't see that; you're only interested in moral self-preening and you do that moral preening on the backs of millions of unsuspecting and innocent third-worlders.

Jr786: The Islamic world is in the unenvious position of having to kiss butt big-time because it has abdicated responsability for its own fate.

It invents nothing, produces nothing, creates nothing and contributes nothing, and as a result it is dependant on others and vulnerable to the whims of outsiders.

External powers moved into that void.

Chanting "inshallah", blaming America and calling for the destruction of the "zionist entity" just won't cut it here.

The brotherhood's answer/solution to all of this can be summed up as "more Islam", but it is precisely islam that created this situation, this "modernity deficit" in the first place.

[aardvark]

John, okay. You've proved your point that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You don't know what happened in 1981. You are perfectly happy sending people off to be jailed and tortured on the suspicion - no proof is required - that they belong to an organization which you have proven you know nothing about. You've got nothing to contribute to serious argument, so feel free to vent if you like - I'm too busy.

[Yusuf Smith]

Aardvark: Palubiski is a moronic bigot who regularly spouts his crap on Harry's Place and on Muslim blogs where he is tolerated (he isn't on mine). I never put up with bigots for very long, because you never know if they are telling the truth or not.

[alle]

Murder is a form of violence and I just stated that The Brotherhood was "involved" in Sadat's murder.

I think this must be the single most common misperception about the Muslim Brotherhood in the West, often coupled with the belief that they've been doing similar things ever since. So, small wonder many in the West support, or at least ignore, the persecution of their members. I don't know what could be done to correct it.

[Amal A]

The blogger is not getting much sympathy from the Arab street,judging by comments of readers on internet sites.Why? Because he supposedly insulted "Islam" by writing blog posts. What role do the Muslim Brothers and al Azhar play in encouraging the regime and ordinary Egytians to do that? A lot. Mubarak is cracking on the MB with one hand, and appeasing the Azhar with the other by throwing to them some secular bones. I haven't heard anyone from the MB objecting to the prosecution of Kareem.

My point is this: I agree that it is important to speak out against repression and totalitarinism. But as an Arab secular I demand the same from the Islamists. You seem to be mostly concerned about the western bias against Muslims. I am concerned about that but don't want it to blind me to the fact that the Islamist are not only victims or the only victims.

[maryatexitzero]

This selective outrage, where Westerners care about one anti-Islamist blogger but can't be bothered about equally arbitrary and illiberal repression of hundreds of Islamists, only reinforces general skepticism that this isn't really about freedom, human rights, or democracy.

You insult our intelligence here. The Muslim brotherhood, the so-called 'liberal Islamists' (or freedom fighters, nonviolent Islamists or whatever new logo or spin they're labelled with this week), are also the financial arm of terrorism's billion dollar financial network

Almost from the inception of the modern Islamic banking structure (early 1980s), the international Muslim Brotherhood set up a parallel and far-flung offshore structure that has become an integral part of its ability to hide and move money around the world. This network is little understood and has, so far, garnered little attention from the intelligence and law enforcement communities tracking terrorist financial structures.

The fundamental premise of the Brotherhood in setting up this structure was that it is necessary to build a clandestine structure that was hidden from non-Muslims and even Muslims who do not share the Brotherhood’s fundamental objective of recreating the Islamic caliphate and spreading Islam, by force and persuasion, across the globe.

To this end, the Brotherhood’s strategy, including the construction of its financial network, is built on the pillars of “clandestinity, duplicity, exclusion, violence, pragmatism and opportunism.”[1] ...

....Public records show the Brotherhood’s financial network of holding companies, subsidiaries, shell banks and real financial institutions stretches to Panama, Liberia, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Cyprus, Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and beyond. Many of the entities are in the names of individuals who, like Nada, Nasreddin, al-Qaradawi and Himmat, have publicly identified themselves as Brotherhood leaders.

A senior U.S. government official estimates the total assets of the international Brotherhood to be between $5 billion and $10 billion.[6] It is a difficult thing to assess because some individual members, such as Nada and Nasreddin, have great individual wealth. They also jointly own dozens of enterprises, both real and offshore, with Ghalib Himmat and other Brotherhood leaders. Discerning what is personal wealth, legitimate business operations, and Brotherhood wealth is difficult if not impossible. It is clear not all the money is intended to finance terror or even radical Islam. But it is equally clear that this network provides the ways and means to move significant sums of cash for those operations.

The Brotherhood is the financial wing of terrorism's Murder Incorporated, they're a cornerstone of terrorism's infrastructure and you're trying to tell us that we should support them if we believe in 'freedom, human rights and democracy'?

[jr786]

To this end, the Brotherhood’s strategy, including the construction of its financial network, is built on the pillars of “clandestinity, duplicity, exclusion, violence, pragmatism and opportunism.”

....Public records show the Brotherhood’s financial network of holding companies, subsidiaries, shell banks and real financial institutions stretches to...beyond.

Wow, a worldwide Brotherhood conspiracy; it sounds like the CIA. Well, at least I know where my money went ... to beyond! I knew there were Muslims there. One question - if all this so clandestine, why then:

Many of the entities are in the names of individuals like Nada, Nasreddin, al-Qaradawi and Himmat,[who] have publicly identified themselves as Brotherhood leaders

Where's the 'clandestinity'? This post is straight from Aipac - any Muslim who challenges the US and Israel is now a de facto terrorist. Perfect.

[maryatexitzero]

Wow, a worldwide Brotherhood conspiracy; it sounds like the CIA

It's about as clandestine as the CIA, meaning that it is not. Everyone knows about it, or they should. Which is why this attempt to sell Americans on the idea that we should support this branch of the terrorist infrastructure to prove our commitment to peace, love, botherhood and democracy is such a farce.

This post is straight from Aipac - any Muslim who challenges the US and Israel is now a de facto terrorist. Perfect

No, any organization that finances terrorist organizations is de facto criminal. The Muslim Brotherhood's offshore accounts support terrorism. The violent or nonviolent nature of their personal or group ideology is irrelevant

[aardvark]

Mary and company - Whatever you or I think about the Muslim Brotherhood, you are either unintentionally or intentionally missing the point. The Egyptian government is currently rounding up large numbers of people on *suspicion* of being members of the Muslim Brotherhood. This means throwing them into jail, probably torturing them, confiscating their assets, and sending them off to state security courts where they will not even receive the facade of a fair trial. No due process, no legal rights, nothing. If you think that this is okay, then you do not care about human rights or political freedoms. Period. Which is fine in its own way, I suppose, but which proves my point.

As for to the rest about the Muslim Brotherhood, clearly no minds will be changed here. Dismissing the MB as the financier of global terror misses so much about the organization that it's just funny (whereas leaping from that to a blithe dismissal of the human rights of anyone accused, without proof, of being associated with the organization is just offensive). The MB is a complex organization with a lot of trends, which has evolved over time, and which requires serious study. I've written a lot about it before, and I will again. But this comment thread isn't the place to waste my time, so I won't. So enjoy your weekends.

[maryatexitzero]

Dismissing the MB as the financier of global terror...

..now that's funny..I also 'dismiss' John Gotti as the head of a national gangster organization and bin Laden as a mass murderer.

If you think that this is okay, then you do not care about human rights or political freedoms. Period.

I say that I do care about human rights and political freedoms, but America is supposed to be at war with terrorists and the states and organizations that support them. Which means that we are at war with the organization that the Muslim Brotherhood is a part of. There is no reason for me, as an American, to feel any obligation to support them.

In fact, I have an obligation not to support them. If we're talking about money, that may be a legal obligation.

The faults of the Egyptian penal and legal system apply to all Egyptians, not just to the Muslim Brotherhood. Why are you only making this fine-tuned sales pitch on the Muslim Brotherhood's behalf?

[aardvark]

" Why are you only making this fine-tuned sales pitch on the Muslim Brotherhood's behalf?"

Give me a break. A few minutes research would tell you that I've been writing in defense of Egyptian political reform - across the political spectrum - for many years. That just about exhausts my patience with this comments thread. I really can't make the point about the problems with the roundup of alleged MB members without due process or fair trial any more clearly than I have, so I won't try. I'm done.

[Carsten Agger]

The faults of the Egyptian penal and legal system apply to all Egyptians, not just to the Muslim Brotherhood...

No, but the point here is that the Muslim Brotherhood are the ones suffering under it right now. And you may have missed that people are being rounded up, jailed and probably tortured under *suspicion* of being MB.

Which means, that with all probability, also people *not* belonging to the MB are being rounded up, jailed and probably tortured. Are we to understand that you condone this? By your comments so far: Yes, it would appear so.

But then we're amply informed as to where you stand, at least.

[maryatexitzero]

No, but the point here is that the Muslim Brotherhood are the ones suffering under it right now.

I really can't make the point about the problems with the roundup of alleged MB members without due process or fair trial any more clearly than I have, so I won't try. I'm done.

Instead of calling them "the Muslim Brotherhood", why don't we just use abu's more evocative phrase, "the financier of global terror".

If we do, the defense of the MB becomes:

"No, but the point here is that the the financier[s] of global terrorare the ones suffering under it right now."

or

"I really can't make the point about the problems with the roundup of alleged the financier[s] of global terror without due process or fair trial any more clearly than I have..",

When we include facts about Al-ikhwan, this whole defense sounds kind of wrong in some way, doesn't it?

[alle]

mary - When we include facts about Al-ikhwan, this whole defense sounds kind of wrong in some way, doesn't it?

He isn't defending the MB, whether he should or not considering the accusations. He's simply saying all people deserve due process, whether they're being accused of being Islamists, Socialists, Libertarians, financing terror, selling drugs, stealing food, or whatever. Innocent until proven guilty, etc.

I agree with AA:s main point, that it is completely hypocritical to keep your mouth shut when violations occur under the pretext of fighting Islamists, and only bring up human rights as an issue when the same shit hits an innocent victim that you sympathize with politically (like this unfortunate blogger).

And I think it deserves to be stressed even more, the immense damage these things do to Western human rights lingo among Egyptians and others in the region. And not only those particular Egyptians, Brothers and others, who are in this very moment tied to a chair with electric cables taped to their balls -- no, everyone with a political interest is listening to the deafening silence right now, after having heard the uproar in the blogger case just yesterday. Of course many will conclude, and rightly so, that mainstream Western protests over human rights violations are just a fig leaf for beating up on your enemies in the region. And from that point on, people stop listening.