Spain to deport ex-Muslim for criticizing Islam

June 11, 2014 • 5:37 am

Talk about a country bending over backwards to cater to Islam! Spaniards, you have reason to be angry at your country. For the Gatestone Institute (and also Jihad Watch) reports that Spain is set to deport a legal immigrant who was allowed residency in the country in 2006 for fear of persecution.  Imran Firasat, from Pakistan, married a non-Muslim Indonesian woman, and received the customary death threats for apostasy in both Pakistan and Indonesia. Here he is with his family:

Photo from Gatestone Institute

Firasat fled to Spain, but wasn’t a quiet citizen: he proceeded to agitate against Islam and the Qur’an, which he asked to have banned in Spain because it incited hatred. He even asked to burn one in public.

Well, that wouldn’t fly, but Firasat continued to criticize Islam. In 2012, he made a film, “The Innocent Prophet,” which you can see on YouTube, but of course there’s an obligatory warning even there:

Screen shot 2014-06-11 at 6.32.34 AM

I wonder who complained about that being offensive?

Here’s Firasat’s film, one hour and 11 minutes long:

According to Gatestone, the film was the nail in Firasat’s coffin, although its model, “Innocence of Islam,” was truly dreadful, and, to my mind, genuinely Islamophobic in the sense of being anti-Muslim as well as anti-Islam:

Spanish authorities, however, took measures to deport Firasat in December 2012, after he released a one-hour amateur film entitled, “The Innocent Prophet: The Life of Mohammed from a Different Point of View.” The movie, which was posted on YouTube, purports to raise awareness of the dangers of Islam to Western Civilization.

The film shows images of the Muslim terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, on double-decker buses in London and on commuter trains in Madrid. The movie, which features many passages from the Koran that threaten violence against non-Muslims, promises to answer the question: “Was Mohammed an inspired prophet of God, or was he a madman driven by his own demons, thus producing a religion of violence and tyranny?”

Firasat, who runs a website called (A World Without Islam), says he was inspired by another amateur film, “The Innocence of Muslims,” which portrayed the Islamic Prophet Mohammed as a womanizer and a pedophile. Released in September 2012, the movie triggered a wave of riots across Europe and the Middle East that resulted in the deaths of more than 30 people.

I haven’t watched the whole film, but my sampling shows that it’s strong stuff, and in some places verges on true Islamophobia. Muhammad, for instance, is called the head of a “Mafia” and depicted with an automatic weapon.)But in the main the film underscores the lack of “peacefulness” of the faith itself, showing hateful verses from the Qur’an, and criticizes the tenets of that faith. The bulk of the film is a critique of the religion, and, at the end, Firasat says that his aim is not even to make people leave the faith, but simply examine it, and at the least embrace “the way of love and humanity” that could inhere in a new Islam.

Well, maybe that is “hate speech” in Spain, which, after all, doesn’t have the same rules for freedom of speech as does U.S.  But it doesn’t matter, at least morally.  What matters is that the Spanish Supreme Court decided to deport Firasat, and, depending where he goes, this is equivalent to a death sentence.

Further, the deportation order comes not from Firasat’s movie itself, but clearly from the fear that it would incite Muslims to violence:

Shortly after Firasat’s film was released, Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo and Spanish Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz initiated a process to review his refugee status.

A Foreign Ministry document, dated November 27, 2012, stated that “the consequences of the release of a video with such [anti-Islamic] characteristics are highly worrisome and constitute a real risk for Spanish interests because the author of the video identifies himself as a ‘Spanish citizen.'”

The document added that Firasat’s actions, including his threats to burn the Koran, were “destabilizing” and “heightened the risk of attacks against Spanish interests abroad, especially in the current context of the extreme sensitivity and indignation in the Muslim world.”

Fernández issued an order on December 21, 2012 to deport Firasat based on Article 44 of the Law on Asylum and Protection, which allows the state to revoke the refugee status of “persons who constitute a threat to Spanish security.” The deportation order stated that Firasat constituted a “persistent source of problems due to his constant threats against the Koran and Islam in general.”

Firasat appealed the deportation order at the National Court [Audiencia Nacional], arguing that the expression of his views about Islam fall within the constitutional right to free speech.

But the National Court rejected Firasat’s appeal. A ruling dated October 3, 2013 states:

“The right to the freedom of expression can be subject to certain formalities, conditions, restrictions or sanctions, which constitute necessary measures, in a democratic society, to preserve national security, public security and the constitutional order.”

In other words, criticism of Islam constitutes a threat to national security and order!

And the Supreme Court of Spain, in a total display of cowardice, upheld that ruling:

Now the Supreme Court has not only confirmed the National Court’s ruling, but it has gone one step farther. Its ruling states:

“The right to the freedom of expression does not guarantee the right to intolerant manifestations or expressions that infringe against religious freedom, that have the character of blasphemy or that seek to offend religious convictions and do not contribute to the public debate.”

This paragraph is strangely similar to an international blasphemy law being promoted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries dedicated to implementing a worldwide ban on “negative stereotyping of Islam.”

Have a look at UN initiativ 16/18, introduced by Muslim countries trying to codify that blasphemy law. It passed the UN General Assembly in 2011—with the support of the Obama Administration.

Screen shot 2014-06-11 at 7.03.24 AM

That, of course, really means, “we are committed to avoiding criticism of Islam.” It doesn’t have the power of law, but Islamic countries are promoting its enforcement.

What is ironic about all this is that Spain gave Firasat and his family residency to protect him from the perfidies of Islam, but now wants to expel him because he’s making public statements about those perfidies. And the real reason for his deportation is not really his own actions, but fear of retribution from Muslims. That’s quite clear from the Supreme Court’s statement.

Firasat can still appeal his “sentence” to the European Court of Human Rights, and the Spanish government has said that it wouldn’t deport him to a country where he’d be endangered. Great: put the problem in someone else’s lap.

I accuse the Spanish government of cowardice and hypocricy born of fear of Muslim violence. They abjure the rights of criticism of Englightenment democracies, preferring to endanger the life (and family) of an activist.

The final irony is that the Spanish government fears the very violence that Firasat criticizes in his film, criticism which he’s being deported. If he’s wrong, and Islam really is a peaceful religion, what’s Spain afraid of?

Although Firasat may be a bit of an extremist (who wouldn’t if you have to leave your home because of dumb religious rules on apostasy?), he’s also a very brave man. As he said:

“When I heard that the U.S. ambassador [in Libya] was slain,I said okay, you Muslims, use violence, but we will continue to make films. One day one of us will lose.”

Let’s hope it’s reason that doesn’t lose.

h/t: Malgorzata

55 thoughts on “Spain to deport ex-Muslim for criticizing Islam

  1. I have a really hard time separating Islam from its practitioners. So, in large measure, I am both anti-Islam and anti-Muslim.

    Does that make me phobic? I don’t think so. If Islamic men want to kill me because I don’t cover my head, because I have an education, because I speak out, or because I am not one of them, why is it phobic to be afraid? Sure, not all of them are like that, but why is it up to me to make the distinction? I don’t see them, as a group, moving in a more-civilized, less-violent direction.

    I think that if we don’t wake up to the danger that these people pose, we’re going to be in a lot more trouble than we are now. L

      1. You can snark all you want, but you didn’t answer my question.

        Why is it up to me to make the distinction? L

        1. If 90% of muslim men actively tried to kill you for your dress and speech, it wouldn’t be up to you to make the distinction. In that case, your generalization would be perfectly reasonable. Heck, if it was 10% or even 1%, you might reasonably argue that the risk to you makes the generalization defensible.

          But since it’s probably only about 1 in every 10,000 or 1 in every 100,000 muslim men who will act that way towards you,* it is grossly unfair to paint the whole population that way. What you’re doing is analogous to some racist saying blacks are lazy or asians can’t drive, only its worse, because you’re imputing murderousness to a group rather than some less nasty negative trait.

          *And in fact the relative danger of murder you face from muslim men may be little or no different from the danger of murder you face from other men. Making your generalization even less legitimate.

          1. Islam is a violent philosophy.

            If someone espouses a violent philosophy, it’s not up to me to ascertain whether that individual is personally violent.

            This is not the same as racism. People don’t choose their heredity. They do choose their philosophy of life.

            I have read a good deal of the Qu’ran. These are people who are not repulsed by what they’ve read. L

            1. Exactly.

              It’s highly unlikely that any of us will be killed by any Neo-Nazis. But that doesn’t make it irrational to shun and even fear them.

              Islam is quite notably highly resistant to the civilizing effects of the Enlightenment, in stark contrast to Christianity. There’s no significant difference in principle between the two; both are bloodthirsty pre-civilized abominations. For every verse you can cite with Muhammad saying to kill all infidels, I’ll cite you at least one with Jesus saying the same. Luke 19:27, for starters.

              But Christians, however, by and large are either ignorant of such verses or have “reinterpreted” them to mean some sort of metaphorical inner spiritual struggle. Not all, of course, but most. Muslims, on the other hand, post YouTube videos of beheadings and damned few Muslims condemn the barbarity for what it is, with most either giving explicit approval or refusing to express disapproval. At least when we had Christians assassinating women’s healthcare providers, huge swaths of Christendom vigorously opposed it and the killers were brought to justice. How often do Muslims in Muslim countries practice “honor” killings, often by public stoning, and never face a court?



              1. And likewise, IMO, it’s entirely sensible to fear middle-aged, white, middle-class USian males who feel compelled to carry loaded firearms in public places (especially US suburban shopping malls and stores).

                These people are demonstrating, by their behavior, that they have very poor grasp of reality. This is reason enough to avoid them in any way one can and to oppose such behavior.

            2. Linda I tend to agree with your sentiments expressed here. I am also leery of some people based on their behavior, and I don’t make any apologies anymore for it. I have no power in this world anymore and I don’t feel like it’s my responsibility to be generous to everyone with the little I do have.

              I took a class many years ago where they discussed the concept of racism. Racism then was defined in terms of who has the power. If you have no power, that is not racist. If you have power over someone and you use that power differently then that is racism. I don’t know if people still use that definition or not.

            3. “If someone espouses a violent philosophy it’s not up to me to a certain whether that individual is personally violent.”

              Apparently, you are assuming that a majority supports violence and based on that assumption, your prejudice against Moslems is justified. As I see it, you are avoiding the responsibility of fairness for the sake of convenience.

              Having lived in Jordan for three years, it is clear to me that your prejudice, as most any prejudice, is indefensible.

              1. Why? Because Jordan muslims don’t spend all day killing each other, or because they didn’t kill you?

              2. What’s the rate of “honour” killings in Jordan? What’s the conviction rate (with commensurate sentencing) for perpetrators?

                According to this, 15-20 murders per year (and a third of teenagers surveyed thought they were a good thing), while this one says 20-25. A sourced quote in Wikipedia says “under the existing law, people found guilty of committing honor killings often receive sentences as light as six months in prison”. Attempts to amend laws to ensure that family “honour” did not provide exoneration for murder were rejected by the Jordanian parliament in the 21st century.

                If a majority really doesn’t support this particular form of violence, aren’t they responsible for fixing it? Maybe Jordan is the most enlightened of islamic kingdoms, but that’s called damning with faint praise.

            4. You cannot look at someone’s clothing and know whether they espouse a violent philosophy. You can’t know it from a religious symbol they happen to wear. And my point still stands, the likelihood that some stranger muslim male will actually be violent towards you approaches the same likelihood that a nonmuslim man will be. So generalizing that they are all threats is as bad as any other generalization.

              You’re using an “all short-skirt-wearing women are sluts” argument. You really want to claim that’s a legitimate way to think?

              What about in stand your ground states? Is “he looked muslim” a legitimate reason to shoot some random crescent-wearing guy walking down the street? Don’t you think some more individually specific assessment of threat is needed before people start shooting each other in the streets over what each others’ holy books say?

    1. You have to make the distinction because you desire to be a human being. I live in Kentucky where christians proudly put bumper stickers on their trucks that read

      “everything I need to know about muslims I learned on 9/11”

      I work with muslims, go to college with muslims, have lunch with muslims. You wouldn’t be able to pick them out of a crowd. They don’t where turbans and yell “alahu akbar!,” and subjugate women. They don’t act any different from anybody else I work with or go to school with. They are no different than the general population.

      So yeah, it is up to you to make the distinction. You can be like the rednecks with the bumper stickers if you want, but I am going to be a human being.

      1. How many of the Muslims you personally know would be willing to express unconditional condemnation of death for apostates? How many would state that there is no place in civilized society for Sharia?

        I’m guessing that, within rounding, the answer is, “zero.”

        You probably know some white supremacists, too. Similar questions would apply, except mainstream Muslim positions are more radically violent than mainstream racist positions. Death for apostasy is normative for Muslims, but today’s American racists are mostly interested in not giving academic scholarships to Black kids. It’s been quite a while since I’ve personally encountered somebody who favors old-timey lynchings, but I don’t know if I’ve ever met a Muslim who didn’t endorse Sharia as an universal ideal.

        …excluding, of course, atheist Muslims like Maryam Namazie….


        1. The answer is all of them. I’ve had those talks before. They all think death for apostasy and stoning for adultery is wrong. Just like most christians think it is wrong.

          From the ivory tower where all you see is news stories and statistics it is easy to forget that there are actual human beings out there.

          1. It’s interesting that, when asked personally, they’ll deny any support for violent actions, but in anonymous surveys of the type Jerry sometimes posts about a third of the muslims here in Europe support killing of apostates, adulterers, and sometimes even of those who ‘insult islam’.

            It is this sort of doublespeak we also saw with our own model-moderate muslim Abu Laban who, when the Danish government refused to interfere in the cartoon affair, made a tour through the Middle East to incite hatred- with 3 extra fake cartoons on top of the ones actually published.

            I think the phenomenon is called ‘taqiyya’, where lying is authorised if it’s in defence of the faith- and that can be taken pretty wide. Lying to kafirs is probably allowed at any rate.

            1. A third espousing means two thirds don’t. So right there, Linda’s generalization is already going to be wrong twice as often as its right. And that’s Europe – I suspect (but have no evidence) that if you surveyed second- and third- generation Muslim Americans, the numbers supporting violence would be even lower.

              1. I sure hope not. Basically that was used to excuse extremely bad behavior by members of minority groups.

                And it’s being used in the west to excuse Muslims who are a minority group.

              2. Many people are highly distrustful of gun enthusiasts (actually I know a few and find them quite normal)

                Can you imagine if ONE THIRD of NRA members said they supported school shootings?!

        2. The Muslims I know would be willing to express those opinions I think. I have a Pakistani friend I met in high school (born in Canada) who is one of the nicest, sincerest people I know. He has a beautiful wife and lovely family now and is fairly liberal. Other Muslims I know are of the non practicing kind so they are Muslim in name only – those guys even drink.

          At the same time, I’ve been looked at with absolute hate and felt very afraid by a bunch of robed fellows who didn’t like me telling them to move away from my car so I could pull into a gas station. Those guys are very different from the guys I’m friends with.

          1. The Muslims I know would be willing to express those opinions I think.

            Then why don’t they?

            After Dr. Tiller was murdered, the National Right to Life Committee and Operation Rescue both issued statements condemning the killing and expressing sympathies with Dr. Tiller’s family. And, for that matter, even the Catholic Church has made mealy-mouthed notpologies to victims of rapist priests.

            Yet, I can’t even think of a single time when some so-called “moderate” Muslim organization or figurehead spoke out against death for apostasy or Sharia in general. Granted, some individuals don’t actually condone it but merely remain silent and avoid the questions…but really? Is it that hard to condemn murder and barbarity?

            Either it’s because they lack the courage to speak out against fellow Muslims, or they don’t see it as something important enough to warrant attention…or it’s because they agree with it.

            No matter how you slice it, the end result is the same. They stand, consciously or otherwise, with the barbarians and against civilization.



            1. My friends do and in Canada it was the help of moderate Muslims that resulted in the arrest of the Muslims involved in a plot to blow up a Canadian train headed for the US. Here is an excerpt from a community member:

              We have to be on the front lines to either nip it in the bud in the very beginning or co-operate with authorities so they can be brought to justice.

              In our community we may look a little different, but in our hearts we love Canada. It’s our country. It’s our tribe…. We want safety for all Canadians regardless of their religion.

              Pretty good stuff I thought & as an atheist I applauded these efforts publicly as I think should all secularists. It is no small feat to speak out against Muslims as a Muslim as it can put you and your family at risk.

      2. (Male) Sikhs (often) wear turbans. Muslims rarely.

        I work with many fine Muslims as well.

        Much depends on the context. If a person looks angry and is shouting, I’m going to fear and avoid them.

        How do you know (for sure) that they (the Muslims you know) do not subjugate women? This is very common and is very common among fundie Xians, Mormons, etc. too. It’s pretty hard to know the real relations between a couple.

        I judge people by their behavior, not the melanin concentration in their skin, their physical features, or religion (though I do think real religious believers have at least one “loose screw”).

        1. The muslims I know are mostly Caucasian. None of them look angry and shout. I know that sikhs where turbans and not muslims, but come to Kentucky and see how many people know the difference. Also, I resent the implication that I should assume they probably are mistreating women, and I just don’t see it.

          When you start making assumptions about how people act, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is when you are crossing over from disagreeing with a philosophy to actual prejudice. “Oh he seems completely normal, and is having a nice relationship with that woman. He probably beats her in private though, you know, because he’s muslim.”

          1. Sounds like you know these people well enough to know (to your satisfaction) on the oppression issue. Fair enough.

            I fear and avoid gun-toting “white” Xians in the US.

          2. Also, a bit of my background: I’ve known a fair number of couples (and parent-child relationships) where no one would have guessed (including me) that something was wrong (badly wrong, criminally wrong).

            I was wrong in these cases, along with everyone else (as far as I know) who knew them.

            1. Yes fine, but I think you’re on the paranoid train to crazy town if you start suspecting ALL or even most “seemingly fine” relationships are hiding something very wrong and criminal.

              Not saying you are! You clearly didn’t say that. I’m just pointing out that going from point A “a few couples” to point B “all or most couples” would be extrapolating beyond what the evidence supports, and this would be analogous to the topic at hand.

    2. I think you should meet more Muslims.

      The world is an enormous place, and focusing only on the worst of it can harm your perspective.

      If I put on a filter where I only considered the worst news that comes out of the US, wow, it’s bad. And I was very sympathetic to that position while I went through a severe anti-American phase from ~2003-2007. I wonder how many Americans here really fathom just how bad the US was appearing to people outside the US.

      Since that time, I have done a couple of large road trips through the US, made some very very good friends from the Bible Belt (and elsewhere), and have had many of my misconceptions debunked.

      NOTE this does not mean I now give the US a free pass, I am still very critical of many things, the broken political system, the enormous greed, the growing plutocracy, the complete inability to realize that universal government health care is the best choice for better health AND lower expenses, the absurd ignorance and religiosity as demonstrated in places like Lebanon, Missouri (I’ve been to Missouri now!), the guns guns guns etc. etc.

      So by all means, continue to be very critical of Islam, continue to be aghast at many of the horrible things that happen, but be cautious of extrapolating far beyond what the evidence supports.

      And I agree with Ant, the primary cause of all humanity’s ills is H. Sapiens.

  2. It is terrible to deport someone because he may offend others. That is different from inciting hatred toward a group. I haven’t watched his film but it doesn’t seem that he is being deported because of the film but because of the reaction to the film which violates Western values.

    I hope he can appeal to another western country. He and his family could greatly contribute to a society.

    As for the UN stuff – I don’t understand why religion needs to be called out. Isn’t religion protected under article 55 of the United Nations Charter? Seems redundant and therefore suspicious, like the Office of Religious Freedom Canada just opened.

  3. Most of the world’s people who are not Islamic are Islamo=phobic. Those who are not Islam are bending over backwards to show support because they’re afraid of attracting the attentions of the Islamist terrorists.

  4. Including a cameo of one of America’s most well-known nutbag, religious fanatics – Terry Jones – talkin’ jive about another nutbag religion, is not a good way to start things off.

    I do look forward to watching it to the end though. If I’m actually able to make it through the first quarter, the chances are good that I’ll probably be able to endure it all.

    1. As Dan Savage said, “It gets better,” though there are dire parts. But really, is it worth doing this kind of nit-picking? Should the guy simply be tossed to the wolves because his films cite Terry Jones?

  5. If the Human Rights Council is “deeply concerned about incidents of intolerance, discrimination and violence against persons based on their religion or belief in all regions of the world”…
    can we trust that they will speak/act firmly against groups and individuals who would punish apostasy or secularity?
    (i.e., this cannot rightly be applied only to Islamic beliefs)

  6. Of all the troubling issues addressed on this website, the attempt to suppress and criminalize free speech, dissent, and criticism is by far the most troubling to me. If Islamists, or any group, succeed in making it impossible to speak out against bad ideas the world will be headed into another Dark Ages.

  7. “the consequences of the release of a video with such [anti-Islamic] characteristics are highly worrisome and constitute a real risk for Spanish interests because the author of the video identifies himself as a ‘Spanish citizen.’”

    How about the consequences of caving in to terrorist tactics?

  8. What I don’t understand – or rather, don’t credit – is why the lack of focus on arresting these religious hooligans? It doesn’t matter if the murdering maniac was incensed by a video critical of his views: once he starts attacking people, the priority should be to stop him from doing so, and condemning his actions. It irritates me how politics, philosophical views, and even ethics can be criticized and mocked with impunity, but religious criticism is treated as being worse than having little to no self-control over one’s violent tendencies. I mean, I want to ask these people; “Really? Some guy says something nasty or unflattering, and he’s worse than the nutball who goes on a rampage after reading it? You want to respect some guy who’d kill you for looking at his religion wrong, but not the guy who’s pointing out that there are nutballs like him on the loose?”

  9. IIRC, the spanish human rights court is also one of the bodies that tries to prosecute foreigners in foreign countries for what they percieve as humans rights abuses.

    I’m not sure why I find that ironic, but I do. Glass houses, I guess. Maybe some foreign judicial body should give them a taste of their own medicine and prosecute the spanish court for this as a human rights abuse.

    1. If you’re referring to their attempt to prosecute Pinochet, I can only say it’s a shame it failed and the bastard fully deserved to spend his last few years miserably rotting in a jail somewhere. (And btw he’s just another black mark the US and its murderously incompetent spooks have to answer for)

      Failure to grant asylum hardly comes in the same league as mass murder.

  10. This is certainly a departure from the good old times of Ferdinand and Isabella and their… (jarring chord) Spanish Inquisition!

      1. That’s their chief weapon–surprise! And fear. Just surprise and fear. And ruthless efficiency. Just surprise and fear and ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Wait, I’ll come in again . . .

  11. Stupid question, I guess, but why aren’t more (most) Muslims deeply offended by these actions, taken to appease Muslims? Doesn’t this deportation indict all Muslims? “You know how those savages are. If we don’t take action against the apostate, the savages will burn the place down.” I think if I were Muslim I’d be pissed off.

    1. The average muslim doesn’t know. When I was a christian, I didn’t know about every single thing that Christians said or did around the world, or even in my own state. I knew what my congregation was doing, I knew a bit about what my denomination as a whole was doing, and I didn’t pay attention to “religious news.”

      Aside from the child abuse scandals of the catholic church that was on every network, I didn’t know what other denominations or churches were doing. And it isn’t like I wrote to newspapers to condemn the catholic church to make sure everybody knew that my denomination was against that sort of behavior.

      We personally are very tuned into this sort of thing, but your average joe, even your average muslim joe, isn’t sitting around reading every news story about their religion and then making public announcements about how they personally are feeling about it. I never did that as a religious person, I don’t know why I would be surprised no one else does it.

      1. I’m not saying Muslims should (or could be) aware of everything their fellow Muslims are saying and doing. I’m wondering about the average Muslim’s reaction to governments appeasing Muslims.

  12. > That, of course, really means, “we are committed to avoiding criticism of Islam.”

    I think you need to support that better. I’d think the discussion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the fourth paragraph would tend to directly contradict that interpretation.

  13. Spain is about to deport an ex-Muslim after granting him asylum as he fled Islamic tyranny for criticizing Islam? King Ferdinand II of Aragon must be rolling in his grave.

    1. Actually, wouldn’t this cause him to stop rolling? IIRC he’d very likely be an “asylum bad, deportation good” kinda guy.

  14. Islam tells us that Islam means peace, that their goal is peace. What they don’t mention is that the way they intend to bring peace is by converting EVERYONE to Islam. That is their goal. Further, forcible conversion and death for those failing to convert, is part of the program. The introduction of Sharia law is seen as an ideal, with its cruel and brutal punishments and the subjugation of women. It is true that not all Muslims want this – they would rather their religion progressed in the way Christianity has since the Crusades and Inquisition, but those Muslims are frequently cowed in justifiable fear.

    Spain is buckling to terrorists here. Instead of deporting this man, they should be identifying and prosecuting those who think violence rather than debate is an appropriate response. Their behaviour is criminal and should not be allowed to be justified by religious belief.

    1. Yes and I do so frequently and compare him to Rajoy. But change is coming. Many Spaniards, especially the young, are fed up with the PP and the PSOE and their corruption.

      This would not have happened under any other goverment tan Rajoy’s.

Leave a Reply