Karim El-Khashab follows the case of the first Egyptian blogger to be handed a prison sentence A court in Moharram Bek, Alexandria, handed a four-year sentence to blogger Nabil Suleiman on Thursday, after he was found guilty of holding religion in contempt and insulting the president. This decision followed a complaint filed by Al-Azhar University in Alexandria after it came to their attention that, in the aftermath clashes between Muslims and Christians in the coastal city, had posted blogs Al-Azhar deemed offensive to Islam. Suleiman, at the time a student at Al-Azhar, was subsequently expelled from the university. His sentence is the first time in Egypt a blogger has been imprisoned for his writings online. Fellow blogger "Sandmonkey", Sam, told Al-Ahram Weekly that the incident could well have passed unnoticed had Suleiman complied with the investigating officer's demand he repent. Instead, and against the advice of his lawyers, Suleiman "went on a rant about freedom of speech and his right to think what he wants". It was this, says Sam, that antagonised the police who then began to read what he had actually written. What they found was that, in the aftermath of the violence, Suleiman had written Al-Azhar preached hate and ignorance, and was "the flipside of the coin of Al-Qaeda". He condemned what he called Al-Azhar's "racist separation between men and women" and demanded the institution be closed. His blog went on to say Islam preached hatred and violence and then compared the actions of the Prophet Mohamed and his companions to those of Ariel Sharon. The comments were posted in direct response to the incidents Suleiman had in the Moharem Bek area of Alexandria, which included the stabbing of a nun. In previous blogs Suleiman had also criticised the regime, calling President Hosni Mubarak a despot and accusing him of manipulating Islam. comes from a conservative family and many of his peers follow a Salafist interpretation of Islam. His father has since denounced Suleiman for "adopting Western secular views which have driven him away from his religion". His son, he said, should face "the most severe punishment as an atheist who has renounced Islam". Veteran lawyer Ahmed Seif El-Islam Hammad, who headed Suleiman's defence, does not blame the father for his statements to the press, believing "he is in a difficult position, caught between his religious beliefs and his emotions as a father". He continued that his family has been placed in an impossible position, having to defend their name and distance themselves from Suleiman for their own safety. Suleiman is currently in solitary confinement, which he requested. Sam told the Weekly that Suleiman is "worried about being killed by an inmate while in prison, someone seeking a quick ticket to heaven, and is worried about the same happening if he is let out." His lawyers contend that the prosecution's case was flawed. "Both the police and the judge allowed themselves to be swayed by religious sentiments rather than follow the letter of the law," says Hammad. Suleiman's lawyers point out that their client was initially charged on three counts, defaming Islam and aggravating sectarian strife, broadcasting false information that undermines public order and national unity, and insulting the president. The court later dropped the first two charges for lack of evidence. It was the third charge on which Suleiman was eventually convicted, much to the surprise of his defence, since his comments are no different from those posted by other bloggers and published by independent newspapers. The only conclusion, say Suleiman's lawyers, is that the court had allowed religious sentiment to prevail and viewed itself as a self- appointed defender of the faith. Hammad finds the entire process of the case bizarre. While state security had initially rejected the case, local authorities, including the police and the court, insisted it be prosecuted and forced the state to comply. "The judges' insistence he be sentenced played a huge role," says Hammad, who believes the court felt it could act with immunity given that the nature of the case would alienate public support for the defendant. On that point court appears to have been right. Suleiman's supporters have been limited to fellow bloggers, his lawyers and human rights activists. Those who attended the trial report that the courtroom was full of people discussing how the defendant best be punished, even before a verdict had been reached. Al-Azhar medical student Hussein El-Maghouly, who followed the case, told the Weekly, "Al-Azhar was right to expel him, and the sentence of four years is too lenient, he should be made an example of." The administration of Al-Azhar University was not available for comment on the sentence. Fellow blogger Alaa, of the blog Manal and Alaa, says the public and press have missed the real issues raised by the case. "The press should have been the first to come to his defence, regardless of what has been said or written," he told the Weekly, arguing that Suleiman was being tried under the same laws used to imprison journalists. "The national press," he says, "should not be afraid about the taboo of religion but focus on the bigger issues of freedom of speech and expression."
