Sentenced To Death For “Insulting Islam”


Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Majid Rafizadeh via The Gatestone Institute,

  • Can you imagine making a joke and facing death as a result?
  • “During his interrogation, Sina was told that if he signed a confession and repented, he would be pardoned and let go,” said the source in an interview with CHRI on March 21, 2017. “Unfortunately, he made a childish decision and accepted the charges. Then they sentenced him to death.” “Later he admitted that he signed the confession hoping to get freed,” said the source. “Apparently the authorities also got him to confess in front of a camera as well.” — Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI).
  • When the Islamists gain power, they immediately create their own “judiciary system” in order to “legitimize” their implementation of sharia law. In fact, the judiciary system is used less as a tool for bringing people to justice, and more as a tool to suppress freedom of speech and of the press.

To radical Islamist groups, Islam is not a religion which all are free to pursue; it is a weapon. It is the most powerful tool that can be wielded with manipulative skill to control entire populations. Beneath their fierce rule, every aspect of daily life is dictated. What is worn, what is eaten, what you say and what you write are all scrutinized; violations of these stringent laws are met with extreme punishments. Can you imagine making a joke and facing death as a result? Can you imagine the constant fear of doing the wrong thing, saying the wrong thing, when you have seen people beaten, stoned, or killed in the street for nothing more than a mild transgression?

Freedom of speech and press are the Islamists’ top enemies. They are targeted on a regular basis, making it difficult or impossible for the truth to be revealed to the world. While others may take their privacy for granted, the people living under this kind of tyranny must think about everything they say and do. Sometimes even the bravest of souls turn away in the face of such intimidation. Can it really be as restrictive as described? Yes, and far worse than you can imagine.

Sina Dehghan, 21, for example, was arrested by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) when he was 19 for “insulting Islam”. Charges were brought against him for insulting the Prophet Muhammad on the messaging app LINE.

Related Video Few Muslims Are In US Politics — And It’s Not Getting Better

According to the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI):

“During his interrogation, Sina was told that if he signed a confession and repented, he would be pardoned and let go,” said the source in an interview with CHRI on March 21, 2017.

“Unfortunately, he made a childish decision and accepted the charges. Then they sentenced him to death.” “Later he admitted that he signed the confession hoping to get freed,” said the source. “Apparently the authorities also got him to confess in front of a camera as well.”

Such a sentence may seem like madness, but in fact there is a cold and calculated pattern to these actions. When extremist Muslims gain power, they immediately create their own “judiciary system” in order to “legitimize” their implementation of sharia law. This judiciary system is, in fact, used less as a tool for bringing people to justice, and more as a tool to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Once this silence is ensured, they are able to oppress the entire society, restrain any budding opposition, imprison and torture innocent people and sentence thousands to death.


Sina Dehghan, 21, has been sentenced to death in Iran for “insulting Islam”. There are many people like him in Iran who are currently imprisoned, tortured on a daily basis, or awaiting their execution for “insulting Islam”, “insulting the prophet”, “insulting the Supreme Leader” — the examples are endless. (Image source: Center for Human Rights in Iran)

By imprisoning, torturing and hanging idealistic and rebellious young people, the ruling politicians and the Islamist judiciary system are using them as an example to send a message to millions of people that they will not tolerate anyone who opposes their religious or political view.

Radical Islamist groups have been using the same tactic in other nations to impose fear and shock in the public. They aim at silencing people and making them subservient. Once they have control, they will stop at nothing to keep it.

For the Islamists, once you submit to their religion, your freedom of speech and of the press belong to Allah. Your only job is to exercise silence and obedience, and follow your religious leader, imam, sheikh, or velayat-e faqih (“guardianship of the Islamic jurist”).

As the Center for Human Rights in Iran pointed out:

“Security and judicial authorities promised Sina’s family that if they didn’t make any noise about his case, he would have a better chance of being freed, and that talking about it to the media would work against him,” added the source. “Unfortunately, the family believed those words and stopped sharing information about his case and discouraged others from sharing it as well.” “Sina is not feeling well,” continued the source. “He’s depressed and cries constantly. He’s being held in a ward with drug convicts and murderers who broke his jaw a while ago.”

For the ruling Islamists, it does not matter if you have been a loyalist all your life. If you speak up or oppose them just once, you will be eliminated. As CHRI quoted one source: “He was a 19-year-old boy at the time (of his arrest) and had never done anything wrong in his life.”

One of Dehghan’s co-defendants, Mohammad Nouri, was also sentenced to death for posting anti-Islamic comments on social media. Another co-defendant, Sahar Eliasi, was sentenced to seven years, and later the sentence was reduced to three years.

What does the term “anti-Islamic” mean exactly in an Islamist judiciary system? If it carries a death sentence, you might assume that the parameters of the law would be well outlined. However, that is not the case. For the ruling Islamists, the term “anti-Islamic” is completely ambiguous and subjective, and can relate to anything that opposes their view or their power. What might seem like an innocent remark, could change a life forever.

If they are such violent and oppressive people, you might wonder how they are ever able to gain power. They do this through manipulation, charm and countless false promises.

Some radical Islamists, before they gain power, promise people equality, justice, peace, and a far better life. They appeal to the young, to the traditional, and to the hopeful. But once they seize power, they close an iron grip around any and all freedoms, available to their people — in particular freedom of speech.

Once radical Islam has gained power, established its own judiciary system, or infiltrated the legal system with its sharia law, no one is capable of criticizing the government or the political establishment. In a social order ruled by radical Islam, the government is Islam; the government is the representative of Allah and the Prophet Muhammad. Ruling politicians who decide the laws are “divine” figures supposedly appointed by God. They are not to be questioned.

There are many people like Sina Dehghan who are currently imprisoned, tortured on a daily basis, or awaiting their execution for “insulting Islam”, “insulting the prophet”, “insulting the Supreme Leader” — the examples are endless. The issue is that we do not hear about these cases. Some media outlets refuse to report on them in order to appease the Islamic Republic of Iran — just further proof of how coercive their power can be. The only way to reduce it — and the oppression and slaughter of so many people — is to bring attention to the human rights abuses conducted under the Islamic banner of religious “legitimacy ” and “authenticity”.

This type of tyranny is a danger, not just for those enduring it, but for the world.

Doug Casey on the Coming Holy War 


We are already in that war we just call it terrorism instead of Islam verses Christendom

Sunday Talks – U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, and Necessary Paradigm Shifts…


Before getting to the interviews by current U.N Ambassador to the United Nations Mrs. Rubio vis-à-vis Syria, it is important to reassert reference points that are being intentionally overlooked by media; reference points the MSM pundits intentionally hide.

Point One – Russia, Iran and Syria’s President Bashir Assad care primarily about one thing: keeping Bashir Assad in power.  All other influential objectives are secondary to this primary intention.  All of the actions taken by Russia, Iran and the Syrian Government are specifically focused on keeping Bashir Assad in power.

Point Two – All historic action taken by the Russian, Iranian and Syrian participants are to eliminate the opposition to Assad.  Goal #1 keep Assad in power, necessitates goal #2 eliminate Assad’s opposition.

Point Three – So long as Russia, Iran and the Syrian Regime can use the terrorism of ISIS as a foil they will continue to do so.   As long as the appearance of Assad fighting ISIS remains the cognitive reference point of the international community – it is easier to keep Assad in power.

Point Four – Therefore the continued ground action of ISIS becomes a tool, a foil, to keep pressure away from the international community focusing on Assad’s removal.

Point Five – It is currently more beneficial for the objectives of Russia and Iran for the ISIS terrorism narrative to remain in place.  The Syrian regime can survive with Assad, and accomplish the agenda of Russia and Iran,  so long as the appearance of fighting ISIS remains the international optic.

These points have evolved over time.  What was true in 2014 (ISIS is a threat to Assad) is no longer necessarily true in 2017 (ISIS, thanks to Russia, now contained in a geographic region within Syria – and not the same threat as 2014).

This understanding helps to reset the current paradigm.  This quagmire is brutally overlooked by the media.

This fundamental paradigm shift in regional action, is what lies behind Assad (and Russia) now focusing on eliminating the opposition to Assad, that is not necessarily ISIS.

The ISIS narrative (including al-Qaeda, al-Nusra) now provides the foil for Assad, with Russia’s help, to eliminate his opposition that is NOT extremist.  Under the guise of fighting terrorism (ISIS) Assad is launching attacks against his political opposition with the intention to wipe them out.

If the Russian military and the entire Syrian military wanted to eliminate ISIS in Syria (said to be approximately 30k +/-), they could do so rather quickly.  They’ve had over a year to assemble enough military personnel and military armament to defeat that enemy.

They have not done so because it doesn’t fit the current agenda: keeping Assad in power.

It is this specific quagmire, via Assad’s interests served by the continuance of ISIS, that creates a situation where the recent chemical weapons were deployed.  Either:

• A.) By Assad against his political opposition groups. Not ISIS terrorists. Or…

• B.) By political opposition groups, against extremists (al-Qaeda, ISIS etc.). Or…

• C.) By extremist groups, against political opposition groups, in an effort to get the Western forces to attack Assad.

Both A and C are most likely. We can make a solid research argument for both motives.  Given the nature of the victims, option B is impossible to reconcile.  If I had to bet I’d say “C”, but the White House claims much evidence toward “A”.

However, the reality of this quagmire is also why we previously said it doesn’t matter who used Chemical Weapons

What really matters is President Trump’s response as guided by the regional partners who are aware of this reality.

The joint mid-east alliance have a regional plan to combat extremism and bring back stability.   The alliance knows President Trump has no intention of engaging U.S. forces in another mid-east war.   The alliance members know for the first time in history they are dealing with a U.S. President that is beholding to no external political elements.   The alliance is asking for Trump’s political leadership strength.

By President Trump assigning responsibility, and the promise of further action, to Bashir Assad; and by taking extremely aggressive and public action that was widely accepted as necessary by the larger international community – President Trump is breaking up the availability of Assad (Russia and Iran) to hide behind the useful foil of their opposition to ISIS.

If another chemical attack takes place, Bashir Assad runs the risk of being removed.  And the entire world, sans Russia and Iran, will see the removal action as justified.

Remember, the primary goal of Russia and Iran is to keep Assad in power.

♦ If Bashir Assad did not carry out the prior chemical attack, he, and Russia, is now in a position of having to make sure that another attack doesn’t take place, ever.   This means Russia and Assad need to re-engage the fight against whomever ‘might’ carry out another chemical attack.  (Trump wins)

♦ If Bashir Assad did carry out the prior chemical attack, he and Russia, are now unable to use that action against Assad’s political opposition.  (Trump wins)

President Trump is forcing Assad (and Russia) to fight ISIS.

And THAT is the exact response Assad gave after the 59 tomahawk missiles struck the Syrian airbase.  See:  “Assad promises to fight ISIS harder.”  This is also one of the reasons why the targeted airbase is still operational. 

It is important to reset the overall review to this include this perspective when you watch the interviews with Nikki Haley.

Now pay attention to Secretary Tillerson:

Overall, the situation in Syria is one where our approach today and our policy today is, first, to defeat ISIS. By defeating ISIS we remove one of the disruptive elements in Syria that exists today.

That begins to clarify for us opposition forces and regime forces. In working with the coalition — as you know, there is a large coalition of international players and allies who are involved in the future resolution in Syria.

So it’s to defeat ISIS; it’s to begin to stabilize areas of Syria, stabilize areas in the south of Syria, stabilize areas around Raqqa through ceasefire agreements between the Syrian regime forces and opposition forces. Stabilize those areas; begin to restore some normalcy to them. Restore them to local governance — and there are local leaders who are ready to return, some who have left as refugees — they’re ready to return to govern these areas.

Use local forces that will be part of the liberation effort to develop the local security forces — law enforcement, police force. And then use other forces to create outer perimeters of security so that areas like Raqqa, areas in the south can begin to provide a secure environment so refugees can begin to go home and begin the rebuilding process.

In the midst of that, through the Geneva Process, we will start a political process to resolve Syria’s future in terms of its governance structure, and that ultimately, in our view, will lead to a resolution of Bashar al-Assad’s departure.

~ Secretary Tillerson during Air-Strike Debrief

See the plan?

The Stockholm truck attack suspect appeared in ‘security information’ before – police


No profiling is allowed, anyone could be a terrorist!

‘They’re terrified that peace was going to break out’ – Ron Paul on US Syria strike


North Korea is a real problem Syria is not except for ISIS.

4 dead in Stockholm truck attack, 1 person arrested – Swedish Police


No more trucks in the city!

US missile strike in Syria: What we know so far about target, victims & reactions


Did Trump tell Chinese President Xi Jinping what he did with the Tomahawks during the main course or dessert?

*(From the religion of Peace) – 3 killed & many injured after truck drives into pedestrians, crashes into Stockholm dept store


Muslims do what Muslims do!

Syria – It Doesn’t Matter Who Used The Chemical Weapons, The Issue is Extremism and Stability…


Just an Opinion


The use of chemical weapons on civilians (non combatants) is a particularly heinous crime as would be the use of chemicals on any combatants. And anyone that would use those kinds of weapons should be tried for war crimes if possible. However, the issue always is who authorized the used of those weapons? I the most recent  attach it is assumed that Assad in Syria directed this use but on face it doesn’t make sense that he would have directed this use for what was the upside and what was the down side? killing women and children doesn’t reduce the combat ability of your enemy who is also losing on the battle field. So there doesn’t appear to be any upside! There is however a major downside to the use of chemicals especially on women and children; so why would he direct something with no upside and a major downside?

Maybe we should look elsewhere and not at Assad or Russia but instead at those that want Assad and Syria destroyed.  Who would that be well the most likely would be an ISIS related group for they have a significant upside if they can get Assad blamed and no downside if they can do so.  This is especially true since they are being defeated on the battle field. So I would be very careful about who I blamed for this atrocity.

For example during World War I during the period prior to the US involvement President Wilson wasn’t sure which side was the aggressor and which was the victim but he was leaning toward supporting Briton and France. So the US was supplying arms to them and placing them on civilian ships. The Germans found out and warned American not to do that and they also placed an ad in the NYT not to take passage on the Lusitania which was making a trip to Europe. The warning wasn’t headed and the Germans sank the ship and that act propelled us into WW I against the Germans. Worse the aftermath was the cause of World war II then worst war ever fought on the planet.

Then more recently we had the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 which may or may not have been real but President Johnson assumed it was and that directly lead us into the Vietnam war which destroyed his presidency and cost 58,220 Americans their lives and another 153,303 wounded (I was one of them). That war changed America and not for the better.

The point to this discussion is not that action shouldn’t be taken but it should be based on facts not guess work.