Ibrahim Halawa acquited(mod warning in op-Heed it)

weldoninhio

First Up wrote: »

Family bonds are strong in the Arab world.

As I understand it, they went "downtown" because they were outraged at the murder of 800+ protestors a few days before. Call them rash or call them couraguous depending on where you stand on that sort of thing.

So strong that his mother and father never commented on his case. Never once made an appeal on his behalf. So strong.

weldoninhio

K.Flyer wrote: »

I don't think he meant it that way.
He was the Imam that organised a protest in Dublin condemning ISIS and its ideologies.
IIRC, the protest received very little public support from Clonskeagh.

Edit:

Some very interesting posts from him...

https://mobile.twitter.com/DrUmarAlQadri

"Little public support" is nonsense. One of his followers were handing out flyers for their March for Peace in Clonskeagh and got the absolute Shyte beat out of him.

First Up

weldoninhio wrote:

So strong that his mother and father never commented on his case. Never once made an appeal on his behalf. So strong.

Given who his father is, I'd have thought it pretty obvious that he stayed out of it because it would have brought an added and unwelcome political dimension to it.

AlekSmart

smelly sock wrote: »

He has belief in his faith. Ovioulsy thought the mosque was sacred.

Perhaps unwittingly cutting to the heart of the matter.

His,and his fellow adherent's absolute belief that their religion is omnipotent,with it's strictures and requirements taking precedence over ALL other elements of life...including Governments,Civil Laws and particularly the requirements of unbelievers.

In our own little State,unwavering "belief in our faith" (the Faith of our Fathers) led us into a very dark,evil and potentially destructive place indeed.

luckily,we managed to avoid that end-game and have thus become a far better society as a result.
We are only at the beginning of that new unencumbered phase of existence,something which followers and supporters of Imam Halawa may see as even more threatening to their belief's.

It is a question of whether our Individual Freedoms,such as access to non-denominational education,gender equality and other western societal norms can be allowed precedence over others "Belief in their faith".

It's our call

VinLieger

First Up wrote: »

Given who his father is, I'd have thought it pretty obvious that he stayed out of it because it would have brought an added and unwelcome political dimension to it.

Like his links to terrorist organisation's you mean?

AlekSmart

prinzeugen wrote: »

So basically he is saying do what you did "on holiday" here??

No wonder its been deleted. Pro Isis post.

Participating in Irish Politics at any level,is somewhat different to "Participating in Middle Eastern Politics" even as a citizen of a ME State.

I did pose the question earlier in thread as to whether the Halawa's will be reinvigourated enough to make a decision to continue their campaign against the Egyptian Government,as Irish Citizens in Ireland,or Egyptian Citizens in Egypt....Imam Al-Quadri's point is remarkably precise and valid.

One wonders if Imam Halawa,as head of household,will respond ?

end of the road

VinLieger wrote: »

Like his links to terrorist organisation's you mean?

aledged links.

K.Flyer

First Up wrote: »

Given who his father is, I'd have thought it pretty obvious that he stayed out of it because it would have brought an added and unwelcome political dimension to it.

What "unwelcome" political dimension would that be?

First Up

VinLieger wrote:

Like his links to terrorist organisation's you mean?

His links to the elected but recently overthrown government whose supporters were being rounded up (if they were lucky) or shot (if they weren't.)

First Up

K.Flyer wrote:

What "unwelcome" political dimension would that be?

His father was associated with the elected but recently overthrown government. The courts were doing the bidding of the military who had taken power. Do you need it explained further?

K.Flyer

First Up wrote: »

His links to the elected but recently overthrown government whose supporters were being rounded up (if they were lucky) or shot (if they weren't.)

So you are saying he is directly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood?

VinLieger

First Up wrote: »

His father was associated with the elected but recently overthrown government. The courts were doing the bidding of the military who had taken power. Do you need it explained further?

And what difference would his father even publicly talking once about his sons incarceration have done if everyone and their mother knows about those links anyway?

First Up

K.Flyer wrote:

So you are saying he is directly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood?

His father made no secret of his support for the MB. So what?

First Up

VinLieger wrote:

And what difference would his father even publicly talking once about his sons incarceration have done if everyone and their mother knows about those links anyway?

Because there's a good chance it would have been portrayed as a political stunt rather than an issue about the legal process.

VinLieger

First Up wrote: »

His father made no secret of his support for the MB. So what?

Who make no secret about supporting and praising radical terrorists ergo his father supports radical terrorism.

VinLieger

First Up wrote: »

Because there's a good chance it would have been portrayed as a political stunt rather than an issue about the legal process.

The whole thing was a political stunt anyway

First Up

VinLieger wrote:

Who make no secret about supporting and praising radical terrorists ergo his father supports radical terrorism.

Ergo nothing of the sort.

First Up

VinLieger wrote:

The whole thing was a political stunt anyway

You think he asked to stay in jail for four years?

K.Flyer

end of the road wrote: »

aledged links.

First Up wrote: »

His father made no secret of his support for the MB. So what?

Just clarifying a point that some other poster doesn't seem to get that he is a key person in the Muslim Brotherhood in Ireland..

tomwaterford

VinLieger wrote: »

Who make no secret about supporting and praising radical terrorists ergo his father supports radical terrorism.

The Muslim brotherhood is not considered a terrorist organisation by any western country??
(Not even America who obviously rate dissident republican threat higher?)


At the time of this lads arrest it wasn't considered a terrorist organisation?


Now,I severely doubt they are saints,but this half truth that he was out supporting a terrorist organisation is helping noone

(The fact he was found not guilty seems to get forgetton)

First Up

tomwaterford wrote:

(The fact he was found not guilty seems to get forgetton)

As does the fact that the MB was the legitimately elected government. I have not the slightest empathy for radical islam but I do object to military coups. Maybe some Egyptians felt the same way, maybe including young Halawa.

punisher5112

Just to throw an honest opinion and fact just because one is acquitted or found not guilty doesn't always mean they didn't do something it can well be down to lack of or no evidence.

Not saying all as that would be ridiculous but the legal system has and does get things wrong including imprisonment of innocent also.

pablo128

tomwaterford wrote: »

(The fact he was found not guilty seems to get forgetton)

There's a difference between getting acquitted, and being found not guilty.

Jawgap

tomwaterford wrote: »

The Muslim brotherhood is not considered a terrorist organisation by any western country??
(Not even America who obviously rate dissident republican threat higher?)


At the time of this lads arrest it wasn't considered a terrorist organisation?


Now,I severely doubt they are saints,but this half truth that he was out supporting a terrorist organisation is helping noone

(The fact he was found not guilty seems to get forgetton)

......because it's legislation doesn't allow it to.......the MB is not coherent organisation as such, it's more like a collection of affiliates some of which have lapsed into terrorism and been designated as such under a different identity......

Chapters of the Brotherhood have sometimes engaged in terrorism and other forms of political violence. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood fought an insurgency against the Syrian government in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, represented by Hamas, routinely uses terror tactics against Israel, which is why it is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of State.

The Egyptian Brotherhood conducted terror attacks against the Egyptian government in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s until its second leader forbade revolutionary violence. That prohibition held even after the overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brother, in 2013 and the subsequent massacre of nearly 1,000 Muslim Brother protestors at the Rabaa mosque.

The leaders of the organization today continue to call for peaceful protest, even though some of its younger members have attacked private property and government targets, and Brotherhood members appear to be behind a fair bit of violence against Coptic Christians.

According to credible, publicly-available evidence, the organization turns a blind eye to these attacks, but it does not orchestrate or call for them. (Some analysts even doubt whether the leadership of the Egyptian Brotherhood is even in control anymore after the mass arrests of its upper echelons.) Such unsanctioned violence, even if winked at, does not meet the threshold for a terrorist designation, which requires that the organization as such engages in terrorism or retains the intent to do so.

pablo128

First Up wrote: »

As does the fact that the MB was the legitimately elected government. I have not the slightest empathy for radical islam but I do object to military coups. Maybe some Egyptians felt the same way, maybe including young Halawa.

Does the fact that once in power, the Muslim Brotherhood set about murdering Coptic Christians and burning their churches not concern you?

Probably not, because they were democratically elected, right?

wes

pablo128 wrote: »

Does the fact that once in power, the Muslim Brotherhood set about murdering Coptic Christians and burning their churches not concern you?

They did? Link for them ordering that?

pablo128

wes wrote: »

They did? Link for them ordering that?

Did I say they ordered it?

end of the road

pablo128 wrote: »

There's a difference between getting acquitted, and being found not guilty.

sure, but i think we can safely say ibriham isn't guilty of anything apart from being misguided in going to a country where the military were murdering left right and centre.

pablo128 wrote: »

Does the fact that once in power, the Muslim Brotherhood set about murdering Coptic Christians and burning their churches not concern you?

Probably not, because they were democratically elected, right?

any human rights abuses and murder concerns me. whether the government is elected or not. it still doesn't change the fact the current regime in egypt are exactly the same as the mb.

wes

pablo128 wrote: »

Did I say they ordered it?

Ok, so your being purposefully obtuse then it seems. You said the following:

pablo128 wrote: »

Does the fact that once in power, the Muslim Brotherhood set about murdering Coptic Christians and burning their churches not concern you?

So if the Muslim Brotherhood are responsible, then they must have ordered it, right?

For example if I were to claim that the US republican party set about engaging in White supremacist terrorism, then it would be fair for someone to ask me, if they ordered there members to do so.

It seems you are being deliberately obtuse and are not posting in good faith imo.

Jawgap

wes wrote: »

They did? Link for them ordering that?

The second to last para in the quote above is from Brookings Institute analysis of the MB and why the US, legally, can't designate them as a terrorist organisation......their analysis suggests the MB are behind some of the violence directed towards the Copts.

.....and there's this from Foreign Policy

The Cynical Conspiracy War on Egypt’s Christians

The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t behind the callous mass murder of Copts, but it’s certainly fanning the flames of hatred.

To be sure, the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t directly responsible for these attacks. But the Brotherhood’s anti-Christian incitement contributes to an environment that legitimizes them. Indeed, Brotherhood leaders routinely portray Christians not as victims of violence, but as beneficiaries of an Egyptian government that has brutally repressed the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.

The sectarian propaganda isn’t subtle. In an April Facebook post, for example, Muslim Brotherhood leader Gamal Heshmat falsely claimed that Egyptian President Sisi had cancelled Islamic education in mosques, adding parenthetically “even as Christian religious education in Sunday schools continues.” In another post earlier that month, Heshmat claimed that “Jewish and Christian religious extremists” who “rule the world” were responsible for destabilizing Islamist-led governments. Along the same lines, following the Palm Sunday attacks, Brotherhood leader Abdul Mawgoud el-Dardery blamed Christians for the “crisis” and indicated that the violence would only end when Christians aligned with “Muslims,” by which he seemingly meant Islamists.

At other times, the Muslim Brotherhood portrays Christians as aggressors. Its political party tweeted a photo of Christian clerics walking past a tank during Pope Francis’s April visit to Cairo, and declared the Egyptian military the “church militia.” Following the Palm Sunday attacks, Muslim Brotherhood youth figure Amr Farrag promoted the conspiracy theory that the Coptic pope had advance knowledge of the attack and left the church before it happened.

Maybe they don't advocate, directly, violence against this community......but neither do they seem argue in support of letting them get on with their lives in peace?