I think it's fair to say that there's quite a lot of rather shocking material about you online.

I mean, people may come across your commentaries and want to find out more about you, but a quick Google search of

your name will undoubtedly leave them, shall we say, uneasy, to say the least. For sure, I understand that a quick Google

search of my name, uh, leaves me uneasy, to say the least. I mean, if that's how you feel about how

you think I feel about it, what can I do? Well, would you not like to address that at all?

Because let's be honest, your background is rather alarming. I mean, someone might be inclined towards your analysis only

to then discover some of these articles, and it makes them want to run in the opposite direction.

Sure. Yeah, it would make them want to run

in the opposite direction, which is one of the reasons why those articles and that material was produced in the first

place: precisely to discredit me and to make people run in the opposite direction of me. Because most of that

material was written at the same time when I was advocating a strategy in Egypt for the opposition that would help to prevent Egypt's

plunging into civil war. Because I don't know if you remember, but back in those days, shortly after the call took place and

shortly after the massacre at Rabaa, there was a simultaneous... when ISIS was becoming very prominent in Syria, and there was

actually a lot of sympathy for ISIS among Egyptian opposition activists, and calls for jihad in Egypt; people going to Sinai and taking up arms

and doing all sorts of things and thinking that they wanted ISIS to come to Cairo. A U.S. counter-terrorism official

tells CNN that Sinai is one of ISIS's most active and potent affiliates. The official says they pledged their

allegiance to ISIS last year and have adopted ISIS's branding and brutal tactics. Uh, so at that time I was

advocating strategies that were really inspired by the American labor movement in the early days of the American labor

movement, and uh, to a certain extent by the anti-globalization movement of the late 1990s and early 2000s. And I was

advocating non-violent disruption of corporate interests, disruption of business interests, and specifically, explicitly, and

repeatedly warned against violence, warned against bloodshed. Our slogan at that time was "No justice, no profit,"

not "No justice, no peace." We rearranged that slogan from "No justice, no peace" to "No justice, no profit." That

was specifically and exclusively what was being targeted by the strategies that I advocated: the profitability and the operational efficiency of

multinational corporations in Egypt. Bloodless disruption, without bloodshed, was the mantra, and it was effective, even though there

was very, very limited mobilization among activists who were interested in my ideas. Because I have to be very clear: I

was not in communication with any militant or any opposition groups on the ground, any organized set of groups on

the ground at all. I just wrote on Facebook, and some people liked what I wrote. The only thing that I was involved

in directly was basically letter-writing campaigns. [Music] Civil unrest has begun to erupt in the global village.

Foreign. On the ground, there was, first of all, very little of it, but what there was of it, uh, it was effective and it had an

impact, uh, and it was helping to actually move people away from the lure of violent Jihad. It was moving people away

from armed struggle; it was moving people away from violence. And it was targeting corporate interests; it was targeting private-sector power and it

was changing the focus of activists on the ground; it was changing the focus of the opposition and bringing, finally, into

the discussion about the political situation in Egypt, the impact and influence of multinational corporations and institutions like the IMF, and the

impact that foreign investors were having on the situation in Egypt and the extent to which foreign financial

interests were, to one degree or another, responsible for the coup in the first place. And so the Egyptian government portrayed me as

either a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood or betrayed me as someone who was advocating violence, or was

talking about armed struggle, and this and that. But, as I said, you can't find, out of 4,000 pages of my writing,

anywhere where I called for violence, anywhere where I called for armed struggle, anywhere where I called for

bloodshed, or anything of that sort. All you can find, with regards to those types of things, is me condemning it, me warning

against it, me advising so-called revolutionaries to do everything in their power to avoid violence. Uh, and so naturally,

foreign policy in the New York Times, of course, the Egyptian press, all had to portray me as a violent extremist

calling for the overthrow of the government, calling for terrorist attacks, and so on.  You won't find a single example of

that in over 4,000 pages' worth of writing that I did on Egypt. The things that have been written about me, the

material that has been produced about me that's negative, like that, it distorts my ideas and distorts what I

advocated. Specifically, it was for the purpose of trying to get people to turn away from me and to run the opposite direction. For

sure, but as I said, in terms of feeling inclined to address it when I was misrepresented at the time, I responded

At the time, the problem is that I'm still producing content, and the content that I'm producing is generally political in nature and

it's advocating for the economic sovereignty and political independence of Muslim countries. So it makes enemies, and those enemies will continuously

regurgitate those old articles that are on Google that are negative about me, calling me a murderer, calling me

a terrorist, calling me Al-Qaeda, calling me ISIS, or whatever else they might come up with—Muslim Brotherhood. They just regurgitate these things.

So I'm never free from any of that, and I know every time I write something, every time I take

a position, every time I write or make a video expressing an opinion, that anyone who disagrees with that

opinion will just Google me and then will fill my comment section with links talking about what a terrible person I

am because they can't actually respond to what I'm saying. So they have to discredit me and say the things that

they think will make people run the other way. If you're interested in knowing anything about me, you could

actually listen to me. And presumably you Googled me because you did listen to me and you liked what I said. So then you

Googled me, and it took you to disturbing articles defaming me—the problems that are being caused by the things that I'm

saying, or that I'm being defamed as a result of the things that I'm saying—not that the

things that I'm saying themselves are troublesome, but they're troublesome to a certain segment of interests,

and so they produce defamatory material. In most of the countries that I've ever been in, I've been questioned, uh, and I've

been questioned by the FBI. And what was I questioned about? I was never questioned about the things that I

I myself said I was never questioned about my own writing. I was never questioned about my own statements. I was questioned

about what has been written about me. I've always been questioned about what has been written about me, so it serves

its purpose. So then it comes down to the discretion and the judgment of every individual person, whether or not you're going to listen

to what I actually say myself or be convinced by what is said about me, and whether or not you've got to even do

that much research. And if you're someone who, for example, is ready to take your news and your information

from the Weekly Blitz, then you don't belong on my page in the first place. Okay, but wouldn't you at

least like to tell your side of the story, at least in terms of the murder case in the UAE?

I think that part of your history is probably what people find the most disturbing.

Well, okay, in terms of the murder case in the UAE, I didn't tell *my* story; I told it when and

where and to whom it mattered, which was the court in Abu Dhabi, the Supreme Court. And that was after

more than seven years of not being able to give my side of the story to anyone. I wasn't able to meet with an attorney,

I wasn't able to present any evidence in court. I wasn't able to testify. And then finally, after seven years on

death row, I was finally able to present my side of the story. Important to the judge, to a

panel of judges, and they reached their verdict, which was I was guilty of a crime, but not *that* crime. So I was

sentenced according to manslaughter, which was appropriate. Had I been guilty of murder, I wouldn't be here.

Today, I would have been executed. I had two friends of mine who were executed while I wasn't in prison.

So it's not as if the UAE is particularly lenient about that sort of thing, but when they find that that's not

actually the crime that you are guilty of, then you don't receive that punishment. And that's what happened to

me. Alhamdulillah, I ended up being sentenced to less time than I had already served. I was ordered to pay

compensation to the family of the deceased, and I was released. So, beyond the court judgment, I don't really feel the need to

explain it much more than that. Now, in terms of giving my side of the story with regards to claims of promoting violence or

terrorism or any of these sorts of things, my side of the story is available on Facebook. Everything that

I ever said or wrote about Egypt or anything else—well, so my side of the story is there with regards to that. So

if you want to know my side of the story, it's available. My side of the story with regards to the

case in the UAE was presented to the court, and that sentence was served, and it was more than served because, as I

said, I ended up serving I think two or three years longer than what I was ultimately sentenced to. It was a disaster

in my life; it was a tragic, catastrophic event which led to a catastrophic, disastrous seven and a half years of imprisonment

on death row. It's not something that I wish to revisit. You know, the understanding in Islam is that if you commit a wrong

and you pay the price for that, you pay the punishment for that, then from that point on you are able to

move on with your life. And I mean, even in the UAE, from the police to the prosecutors to

The warden of the prison, to the prison guards: everyone refers to your case as a mistake. This is why we also understand Islam. Someone who is committed to sin is someone who has wronged themselves; you have harmed yourself.

If you are able to undergo, in this Dunya, the punishment for some wrong that you did, then you are cleared of that; you're cleared of that case, you're clear of that crime, you're clear of that wrongdoing because you have undergone the punishment for it.

So from that point on, you're able to move on with your life.

Now I know that in the so-called Christian, forgiving West, they don't really believe in forgiveness. Actually, they talk about it, but in actual practice they don't. It's incredibly difficult for an ex-convict to move on with their life in the West.

In the Muslim world, we take a much more forgiving and pardoning, compassionate position with regards to people who have been convicted of crimes. If they have served their punishment, they don't have that tied around their neck for the rest of their life.

As I said, I know in the West that's not the case. If you've ever done anything wrong, then you're sentenced for life, even if you have undergone the punishment for that; you are supposed to be punished forever for that in the forgiving Christian West. But that's not the attitude that Muslims have.

What about this claim that you were the mastermind behind the kidnapping of Princess Latifa, or that you are a member of al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood? Can you clear any of that up?

Uh, first of all, anyone can find out what happened to Princess Latifa. To Sheikh Latifa. Anyone can find out her story; it's not a...

This is an obscure story. My name is ..., my father is the Prime Minister of the UAE and the Ruler of Dubai, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum.

Shahid Bolsen addresses his controversial history

Middle Nation

온라인 비판 및 논란의 여지가 있는 기록에 대한 대응

자신에 대한 충격적인 온라인 자료의 존재를 인정합니다.

구글 검색을 해보면 불안한 정보를 발견할 수 있습니다.

그의 배경이 우려스러워 사람들이 분석을 꺼릴 수 있습니다.

부정적인 기사는 그의 신용을 떨어뜨리고 사람들을 억제하기 위해 만들어졌습니다.

이 기사는 그가 이집트에서 비폭력 전략을 옹호하는 시기와 일치했습니다.

이집트에서의 그의 활동과 그 묘사에 대한 설명

그는 미국 노동운동과 반세계화 운동에서 영감을 받은 비폭력 전략을 주창했습니다.

그는 일부 이집트 야당 활동가들의 친 ISIS 정서를 강조합니다.

그의 전략은 "정의가 없으면 이익도 없다"라는 슬로건을 내걸고 비폭력적으로 기업의 이익을 방해하는 데 초점을 맞췄습니다.

그는 주로 페이스북과 편지 쓰기 캠페인을 통해 무장 단체에 관여하지 않았다고 해명했습니다.

이집트 정부는 그를 무슬림형제단의 지도자 또는 폭력적인 극단주의자로 묘사했습니다.

현재 진행 중인 과제와 부정적인 묘사가 계속되는 이유

그는 무슬림 국가의 경제적 주권과 독립을 옹호하는 정치적 성향의 콘텐츠를 지속적으로 제작하고 있습니다.

그의 적들은 그를 여러 가지 부정적인 용어로 낙인찍으며 오래된 부정적인 기사를 지속적으로 퍼뜨렸습니다.

그는 끊임없이 온라인 공격과 신용을 훼손하려는 시도를 받고 있습니다.

그는 시청자들에게 명예훼손적인 기사에 의존하지 말고 직접 자신의 이야기를 들어보라고 권합니다.

명예를 훼손하는 자료는 그의 발언으로 인해 이해관계가 위협받는 사람들이 제작합니다.

아랍에미리트에서 발생한 살인 사건에 대한 대응

그는 7년 동안 소송을 제기하지 못하다가 아부다비 대법원에 소송을 제기했습니다.

그는 살인이 아닌 과실치사죄로 유죄 판결을 받았고 그에 따라 형을 선고받았습니다.

그는 자신이 살인죄를 저질렀다면 사형에 처해졌을 것이라고 강조합니다.

그는 복역하고 보상금을 지불한 후 석방되었습니다.

그는 폭력 및 테러 고발에 대한 자신의 입장을 페이스북에 공개합니다.

라티파 공주, 알카에다, 무슬림형제단에 대한 비난에 대한 해명

그는 라티파 공주의 탈출 시도에 관여한 자신의 역할을 설명하며 미디어 전략에서 자신의 역할을 강조합니다.

그는 알카에다나 ISIS로부터 받은 협박을 언급하며 이들과의 연관성을 부인하고 있습니다.

그는 무슬림형제단과 그들의 신자유주의적 성향에 대한 신랄한 비판을 분명히 합니다.

그는 앞서 언급한 어떤 그룹과도 관련이 없다고 말합니다.

마무리 발언 및 비폭력에 대한 약속 재확인

그는 질문에 대한 피곤함과 앞으로 나아가고 싶은 마음을 표현합니다.

그는 과실치사에 대한 자신의 유죄 판결에 대해 다시는 이 문제를 거론하지 않겠다는 의사를 거듭 밝힙니다.

그는 사회 변화를 위한 비폭력 전략을 홍보하는 데 평생을 바친 인물입니다.

비폭력에 대한 그의 글에도 불구하고 그는 여전히 폭력적인 사람으로 분류되고 있습니다.

그는 온라인의 부정적인 정보가 사람들을 억제하기 위한 것임을 인정합니다.