But not before "the Home Office said he would be able to practise his faith if he found like-minded Christians in Kabul and 'kept his head down'." You know, like a good dhimmi. At least, in this case, the Home Office was overruled, and the plight of non-Muslims and apostates from Islam in Islamic societies gained a modicum of official recognition.
"Afghan asylum seeker wins right to stay in Britain after converting to Christianity," from the Daily Mail, November 17 (thanks to Rob):
An Afghan asylum seeker who converted to Christianity after arriving in Britain has won the right to stay in the country because of fears he could be executed if returned home.
In a landmark case, the man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, used human rights rules to overturn a previous Home Office decision to refuse him asylum.
Lawyers said there were fears that, as an apostate - one who rejects the Muslim religion - the man, originally from Mazar-i-Sharif, but now living in Hounslow, west London, would face persecution, or even death, on his return.
The former Kabul hotel worker had arrived in the UK as a Muslim, but converted to Christianity, was baptised and now regularly attends a west London church and bible class.
But his conversion had met with hostility from other Afghans and Muslims, who spat at him in the street when rumours spread, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Tribunal was told.
He was even threatened with death by two Afghans with whom he had shared a house in London and warned by others that he would be killed if he went back to Afghanistan.
Although the Afghan Constitution allows non-Muslims to practise their faith, the small Christian community practises exclusively underground and it is forbidden for Afghans to abandon Islam.
To avoid detection if sent back to war-torn Afghanistan, he would have to find an underground network of other Christians to worship with and keep his beliefs from everyone else.
The man who arrived on a hijacked jet would spend his life 'looking over his shoulder' in case he was recognised and could expect no protection from the Afghan government, his lawyers told immigration judges.
Contesting the man's appeal, the Home Office said he would be able to practise his faith if he found like-minded Christians in Kabul and 'kept his head down'.
But, giving the tribunal decision, Senior Immigration Judge Nichols said it was not reasonable to expect someone to live and worship in such circumstances.
Although the Afghan Constitution made no mention of what should happen to apostates, Sharia Law demanded the death penalty, he said [...]
'He faces a real risk of, at the very least, detention because of his religion and, at worst, trial before a Sharia Court and harsh punishment unless the appellant recanted his conversion.
The next step would be to recognize that this aspect of Sharia comes from Muhammad's own orders: "if anyone changes his religion, kill him (Bukhari 9.84.57) -- hence its persistence.
And let's just remember that our young men and women risk their lives so that Islamic "tolerance" can threaten non-Muslims. We're spending too much money over there as well.
I know that Abie Mikie and Yommie keep painting rosy pictures of how wonderful the west would be if we all would just convert to Islam and replace our decadent secular governments with sharia law, but as Sg. Joe Friday would say -"Just the facts, Ma'am."
And these examples from Islamic "Republics" are the facts.
Still beats me why we prop up Islamic Fascist governments.
That he was in danger should never have been in question. How soon we forget.
In 2006, Abdul Rahman was arrested in Afghanistan, imprisoned, and charged with apostasy. More than one of the clerics who were to try his case publicly stated (even before the trial) that he must be killed.
In the face of enormous international pressure, the Afghan Attorney General's office had Rahman declared insane and unfit to stand trial, and he was released. But significantly, no change to the law was made.
This was all over the news in 2006, am I the only one who remembers it?
Here is an article about that case.
Another example of the tolerance of Islam which Obama spoke of glowingly in his Cairo speech last June.
An Afghan asylum seeker who converted to Christianity after arriving in Britain has won the right to stay in the country because of fears he could be executed if returned home.
On the positive side, think of all those Muslims, Afghani, Pakistani, Iranian, Somalian, who want to gain asylum in Britain converting to Christianity. How would that look on the 'record growth for Islam' numbers? Turning of the tide?
Plea for Relief
7. That immigration reforms immediately be implemented to include a suspension of immigration by Muslims for not less than 20 years, exclusive of genuine apostates seeking asylum.
http://civilusdefendus.wordpress.com/civil-defense/citizens-declaration-of-threat-plea-for-relief/
Afghan apostate from Islam gains asylum in U.K.
But not before "the Home Office said he would be able to practise his faith if he found like-minded Christians in Kabul and 'kept his head down'."
............................
Well, not only is it repulsive that these bureaucrats would make such a weasely recommendation—it is also incorrect. While a Christian born as a Christian *might* be able to live relatively unmolested as a second-class dhimmi in Dar-al-Islam, *an apostate* from Islam has no such option—he is marked for death under Shari'ah—if not by the government, then by his former co-religionists.
And, as poster shortfattexan points out, there is the case of Abdul Rahman, from 2006 which shows this man's fate if he was returned.
The only chance he would have would be if no one ever suspected that he was an apostate—and, as an Afghan—in a country where Christians are even thinner on the ground than in most Muslim countries—this is damned unlikely.
I'm glad someone in the British courts got a clue, and granted him asylum.
"if anyone changes his religion, kill him (Bukhari 9.84.57)
Also: the word "religion", as understood by most English speakers, is an incomplete translation of "deen", as understood by muslims. "Deen" refers specifically to the muslim religion. What muslims mean by "deen" is "islam-the-one-true-faith-and-only-actual-religion". Muslims certainly don't kill non-muslims who convert to islam.
I think that is why Robert Spencer usually writes the phrase as, "If anyone changes his Muslim religion, kill him".
And its one-two-three
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn
Next stop Afghanistan.
Of course, one needs to be careful - in exactly the same way as, during the Cold War, one had to be careful about checking and double-checking those claiming to be defectors.
But I am quite sure that all genuine defectors from the Ummah will understand - none better! - the wariness of non-Muslims, and will be quite willing, indeed eager, to submit to thorough background checking and even place themselves under something analogous to a parole system, just to exclude the possibility of 'double agents'.
May this man be blessed and persevere faithfully in the pathway of Life. May his humanity, freed from the darkness and bondage of Islam, flourish like a long-starved plant given water and light.
Final thought: can Ohio jihadwatchers find some way to communicate this man's story, and Judge Nichols' decision, with the reasons given for it, to the local press, and to the Governor of Ohio?
I read through the comments in the original article. The vast majority of them thought that this man simply faked it in order to receive asylum. The hijackers are, of course, living high off the hog right now (now there's irony for you. Hmm, if we can legitimately describe receiving such generous amounts of money, etc from the government as 'living high off the hog,' would that possibly discourage some from doing so? Just a thought.) and hardly anyone said anything about that. The nine stay, and this man had to go? If his conversion were true (or even if it wasn't, simply claiming it is enough), sending him back could very well mean death.
I'm also skeptical of conversion claims but one thing to remember is that by going to a city with a high Muslim population, he is still putting his own life in danger. He might be safer in Britain than in Afghanistan but he's not safe. People know who he is and there is no reason they can't kill him, if the opportunity presents. Just look at the people killed by their own family members. Their sin: conversion to Christianity.
Going to church and studying the Bible? He's probably serious. I pray for the man's growth in grace as well as safety.
God is speaking to the modern Western world through men of strange tongues!
Civilus, good amendment, but it needs to include provisions for enforcement and to monitor apostates granted asylum so as to prevent it from being abused by faux apostates as a way to circumvent the law. Violators who revert to Islam and show evidence of otherwise not having applied for asylum according to verifiable proof that they acted in good faith would be subject to a stint in jail, followed by deportation with no possibility of appeal.
This man is not a convert to Christianity, he is not an Apostate. He was one of the hijackers who were given asylum in the UK after hijacking a plane. I think it was covered on Jihad watch a while ago. He is playing our system.
The guy is definitely playing the system. Wait for a flood of other recruits to Christianity(?) so as to be Muslim sleepers or simply leeches on the UK benefits bandwagon.
Sadly the Home Office is full of islamic supporters and apologists. I have felt their anger and hatred on another site. All these supporters/apologists have openly stated their atheistic views and values not understanding that if theres one group islam hates more than Christains and Jews its atheists.
So really I am very surprised that he was allowed in but not surprised at such comments out of the home office. Britain is very fast falling into the trap of islamification and I believe will be the first western nation to fall maybe within the next 15-20 years.