Monday, January 14, 2013

Are Western Governments Volunteering Dhimmitude?

Imran Firasat 2 cropped
John R. Houk
© January 14, 2013

Now this sounds crazy to me, let’s see if you agree.

Imran Firasat used to be a Muslim living in Pakistan. He converted to Christianity in a nation that places a lot of faith in Islamic Sharia Law. Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws are based on Sharia Law. Thus the Blasphemy Law that agrees with Sharia is a death sentence for leaving Islam to any other religion.

I am uncertain of the details, but the good news for the Christian convert Imran Firasat was the offer of refugee status in the nation of Spain.

At some point while living in Spain Firasat became an activist exposing Islam as a religion of hate when it comes to non-Muslims, especially after a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim. In America we take religious freedom for granted almost as holy writ in our Constitution. That right of religious freedom right after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution with the passing of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution that have been termed the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment guarantees Americans Religious Freedom, Free Speech, Free Press and the right to addresses grievances to the government.

European nations have diluted Free Speech if an individual is found to be offensive to another religion. The word “religion” is a pc tool meaning - do not offend - Muslims and homosexuals but offend Christians all you want. If you read or listen to any pro-Islam or homosexual activist media and those sites specifically encourages violence or death to Christians or Jews it is unlikely that any Western government will take legal action to hinder those attacks. AND contrarily if a Biblical believing Christian condemns Islam as an anti-Christ religion or condemns homosexuality as an ungodly and sinful lifestyle, Muslims and homosexuals in most Western governments can take legal action civilly (primarily) and criminally (gaining ground) against that Christian. In America the First Amendment still prevails; however American Leftists having been attempting to dilute Free Speech to European standards for years.

This is where the bad news enters for Imran Firasat. As an ‘Expose Islam’ activist Spain has revoked Farasat’s refugee status and is in the process of deporting back to Pakistan. Does the Spanish government know what will happen to ex-Muslim Farasat upon a return to Pakistan? OF COURSE THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO A DEPORTED FIRASAT!

Firasat would be arrested stuck in a Muslim prison to experience abuse from Muslim guards and Muslim inmates then convicted to await execution. A convicted ex-Muslim might be murdered in jail awaiting his execution.

NOW does that sound crazy or what!?

Firasat’s expose Islam fervor led him to make a 70 minute documentary entitled “The Innocent Prophet”. This should not be confused with the so-called parody and poorly made movie entitled “The Innocence of Muslims” which President Obama attempted to blame for the Benghazi Massacre of American Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Firasat’s “The Innocent Prophet” is a professionally accomplished documentary that exposes Islam from its own written texts. (As long as Youtube keeps it available) Thanks to the Gates of Vienna below is Firasat’s documentary The innocent Prophet:

Here is a moment of full disclosure: Leftists and Muslim apologists as well of some Spanish media that are considered to the Right politically published reports that Imran Firasat was wanted for a grisly murder in Indonesia. He was in fact exonerated of the charge. Here is an excerpt from Aquí Confidencial with a Google English translation:

Imran Firasat went from freedom fighter to 'kebab Ripper' by a false accusation. After proving his innocence wants to clear his name.

A single complaint can change anyone's life, let alone three. Breaking an image and a stamp of guilt on the forehead of an innocent is as simple as make the slightest media attention with controversial accusations. Imran Firasat can tell. This 33 year old Pakistani renounced Islam and settled in Cantabria in 2004, looking to start a new life in the West. Years later, he would face charges of all shapes and sizes, from robbery by intimidation scam, through the bloodiest of them all after dismemberment murder. All of them proved false.

For Imran cause is more than clear. Speaking to DAILY HERE, explains that after his arrival in the region, started a blog in which he expressed his disagreement with his old belief and denounced the violation of human rights that shield certain countries under Islamic law enforcement. His particular condition caught the attention of several media, both national as Cantabrians, which allowed him to publish articles and opinion columns in a dozen rotary and television networks.

As in his country, this stiff opposition to Islam (eventually publishing on your website even caricatures of Muhammad, considered crime to this religion) earned him many detractors and death threats which he attributes to "Muslims living in Spain ". Imran said his last text, published in the newspaper ABC, provoked strong physical attacks and insults against him. Fearing for the integrity of his wife and two children, born in Cantabria, Spain decided to stop for a while. After his departure began the first legal difficulties: a complaint for fraud by former associates of his wife, who ran next to a kebab restaurant, which also accused him of fleeing the country.

The media previously published their views not happy even tried to contact him, assuming valid accusations. Imran says first that "I never had no intention of returning to Spain because it is my country." "There were problems between the partners," he adds, "I never cheated" argument demonstrated after being acquitted of this charge.

In this period he settled temporarily in Indonesia, where he stuck to his anti-Islamic crusade in the network and on the street, prompting a strong rejection and persecution that led him, after being expelled from China, to seek political asylum in Spain. Once awarded this degree, in the past year 2010, the Jakarta police made an international arrest warrant for the crime of kidnapping, murder and dismemberment, under penalty of death replaceable by a prison term of 15 years. (Aquí Confidencial; by Guillermo San Emeterio, 25/05/2011 21:27 –
Google Translation)

In an article at WND by Taylor Rose draws the scenario that Spain is setting the precedent to comply to the desires of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly ‘Conference’) to criminalize all considered insults to the religion of Islam.

Such a precedent if implemented in all of Europe essentially turns Europeans into dhimmis. This dhimmitude is not by bloody conquest as in the past but by striking oil-economic fear into the West that in turn enacts laws that criminalizes anything that is perceived as an insult to Islam.

AGAIN I ASK: Does that sound crazy or what?

JRH 1/14/13
Criticizing Islam considered national security threat
Spanish authorities threaten to deport Christian to certain death for speaking out

January 12, 2013

WASHINGTON – As tensions continue to surge over the expansion of Shariah law both in the Middle East and in Europe, a new speech rights case has emerged in Spain where an ex-Muslim Christian convert is threatened with deportation for speaking out against Islam.

Imran Farasat, who was interviewed by WND, is a Pakistani Christian who converted from Islam in 2004, after, he said, “I realized that what I was following for 26 years of my life is not a religion but in reality is a political dictatorship which persecutes and teaches to persecute through the orders and teachings of a self-proclaimed prophet (Muhammad).”

After his conversion to Christianity, he began to speak out against Islam. He told WND, “Muslims are involved everywhere in terrorism. Christians are being persecuted in Islamic countries to the maximum level of torture and suffering and Islam is trying to invade the Western world and kill our values. Who will stop this all?”

In his legal fight, he’s represented by The Legal Project, which describes itself as working “…to protect the right in the West to freely discuss Islam, radical Islam, terrorism, and terrorist funding.”

It has a large, transnational clientele that “includes authors, bloggers, journals and politicians.”

He adds on a more personal note that it is the tenets of his Christian faith that lead him to resist Islam.

“It is the time that the citizens of the Western world should stand up and speak the truth against something what is wrong. [The] Bible teaches us to speak the truth in any situation. And for me the truth is that Islam is a man-made religion which was created in order to govern the world. It has several contradictions in itself. It teaches killing (Jihad), hate non-Muslims, discriminate women, rule the world at any price etc….”

According to Sam Nunberg, an attorney at The Legal Project who spoke to WND on the details of the case, it was threats from the Islamic community for violating Shariah blasphemy laws that prompted the Spanish Interior Ministry to grant refugee asylum status in 2004.

While in Spain, Imran continued his activism against Islam, by calling for the Quran to be banned throughout Europe and after the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, releasing a film about Muhammad called “The Innocent Prophet.”

Since the film’s Internet debut, the Spanish Interior Ministry has revoked his asylum status and is now threatening to send him back to Pakistan on the grounds that his activism is “creating national security concern,” according to Nunberg.

The fight now is in the Spanish courts.

But The Legal Project noted, “The Spanish government has revoked Imran Farasat’s asylum status because he made a film. Besides denying him his right of freedom of expression, the government is now trying to facilitate his transfer to Pakistan where Imran will face certain death for blasphemy. It is downright shameful. The Legal Project plans to take every measure possible to make sure that does not happen.”

Spanish government’s role

“He was granted political asylum in 2004 in Spain, and it was granted specifically because his life was in danger because he criticized Islam.”

Nunberg described the case to WND as a straightforward legal fight, explaining, “The Spanish government is reneging on the fact that they granted him asylum in the first place…”

However, Nunberg says that it is more fundamentally “…a violation of his right to freedom of expression to be able to speak out against Islam.”

Both Nunberg and Imran suspect that there are “ideological” reasons behind the Spanish government’s decision to deport Imran. Nunberg told WND the impetus behind the fight now is that the “Spanish government is afraid to lose their economic relations with the Islamic countries. That is why they want to leave a message to the Islamic world that they have taken sufficient actions against someone who criticized Muhammad.”

Nunberg additionally believes the Spanish government is supporting the implementation of Shariah and appeasing Islam. When asked if this is true Nunberg replied “Sure. I would say definitely.”

Imran also adds, “The Spanish government wants to set an example for all the Western countries that all the countries should do the same thing with the anti-Islamic bloggers and activists what Spain has done to me. My status has been revoked and I am on the verge to be deported, not because I have violated any Spanish law, but it is all because of the fear from the Islamic world.”

He said his life is in danger if forced to return to Pakistan.

“I know if I would be sent back to Pakistan, I will be killed on arrival for the blasphemy. What I consider is the truth. Muslims consider that the blasphemy. They do not have the capacity to bear the truth. That is why they kill brutally … everyone who speaks the truth about Muhammad,” he said.

Nunberg commented on the uniqueness of this case by saying that Imran “would be the first case where they [the Europeans] flat out extradite someone to an Islamic country to be killed for blasphemy.”

Nunberg also believes this case is a part of a larger agenda to forward the interests of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation via the Istanbul Process and the UN Resolution 16/18. The OIC, a collection of all Islamic nations at the UN, has been pushing for the implementation of laws globally to criminalize any negative reference to Islam or Muslims.

When asked by WND if this case can set a precedent for the implementation of new speech codes against Islam in Europe, Nunberg said, “Yes that is exactly it. This is certainly a precedent.”

He adds though it is not just Islamic and European nations that are pressing the agenda but the United States under President Barack Obama as well.

“This would set the precedent and Obama also set the precedent. By using the rationale that the Benghazi attack … was all caused by spontaneous combustion … by a video, it becomes the rationale that it [freedom of speech] is a crime.”

Imran also fears the encroachment of Shariah will lead to hate speech laws that protect Islam, while ignoring attacks on Christianity.

“Then a day will arrive in a very near future when expressing your view on Islam will be declared a legal crime according to the Western constitutions. Anyone can criticize Jesus Christ and insult the Christianity and nothing happens. But criticizing Muhammad for his cruel acts and corrupt life doesn’t fall anymore under the right of liberty of speech.”

Nunberg argues that this case serves the core presuppositions of the Istanbul Process and UN Resolution 16/18 by shifting responsibility away from the perpetrator to the victim. He says it sets the legal precedent that, “They [Islamic extremists] are not responsible for the attack, but rather we are responsible for provoking the attack.”

He adds that thanks to already existing European hate speech laws, it provides an already institutionalized precedent for expanding those laws to include the prohibiting of the defaming of Islam.

Nunberg suspects a darker agenda behind the Spanish government, because, “The Spanish Interior Ministry will not even say who accused him….He cannot even face his accuser.”

Imran confesses that even if he is deported back to Pakistan and killed, “I will be happy to die even, if I can change the mentality of some Muslims before something happens to me. I never hated Muslims. For me they are blind. What I hate is the Islamic violent ideology which is not compatible to our Western world.”

He also adds that despite his troubles, “Today I feel proud to say that I am a Christian. I have found the real God and the true message of life. I know that Christ has a special purpose for my life which is to expose the false prophets who misguide and mislead people. I want the entire Muslim world to know that truth which I have recognized.”
Are Western Governments Volunteering Dhimmitude?
John R. Houk
© January 14, 2013
Criticizing Islam considered national security threat

Taylor Rose is a Washington, D.C., staff reporter for WND.

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved.

No comments:

Post a Comment