| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Home Front: WoT | |||
| US Muslims tried to change al-Qaeda supporter | |||
| 2011-10-02 | |||
| [Dawn] A former resident of the southern state of North Carolina resident killed Friday in a US strike on an al-Qaeda leader in Yemen had described himself as a "traitor to America" as he promoted a Mohammedan jihad boy message to the English-speaking world. Samir Khan was killed along with American-born holy man Anwar al-Awlaki ... Born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, al-Awlaki UndieboomerUmar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He , described by President Barack B.O.Obama as a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. A Saudi-born man of Pak heritage, Khan left his family in Charlotte for Yemen in 2009 after several years editing a web site praising al-Qaeda leaders. "I was quite open about my beliefs online and it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I was al-Qaeda to the core," Khan wrote in the fall 2010 issue of Inspire magazine, an online publication. "I am a traitor to America because my religion requires me to be one."
Khan cut off ties with his family when he went to Yemen to join the Islamic version of a gang, even though such ideology runs counter to Islam,
"Gangs don't operate by rules.
Hough said Khan's family was in mourning Friday and did not want to talk about their son, who was 25. "Even though we don't believe in the path he was going or the way he was thinking, he was still a human being, still a human life, and he was still someone's son," Hough said. Hough said he called Khan's father in 2008 after Samir's ideology became known and arranged a counselling session, "an intervention of sorts." There were two meetings in Hough's home over the course of a month involving Khan, his father and a handful of other respected members of the Mohammedan community, Hough said. Each lasted several hours. "He was very respectful -- kind of quiet. He didn't give us a big argument. There was a time or two he tried to state his case. He was pretty much respectful of the circle we'd set up, and he listened," Hough said. The few words Khan tried to offer then involved defending his view supporting the killing of innocent people, Hough said. Khan, who came to the US with his family when he was seven, was influenced in his radical views while living in New York as a child and before his family moved to Charlotte when he was a teenager, Hough said. "The Charlotte community had nothing to do with contributing to his thought process. We did have something to do with trying to stop it with going down that path, and that I feel good about," Hough said. "We didn't turn our head like sometimes we get accused of, not wanting to stop something...as a Mohammedan, I opposed it, but as an American you have to support his right of freedom of speech. It's a fine line in this country." | |||
| Posted by:Fred |
| #10 AlanC, I'm quite familiar with MEMRI. Eohippus, you left out the doctrines of abrogation and of gradual disclosure. The former, combined with estimated date order of the verses in the Qu'ran, explains why there are peaceful (earlier) and violent (later) verses that contradict one another. The doctrine of gradual disclosure explains how many muslims can *honestly* say Islam is a religion of peace - they never get to the 'let us tell you the real meaning here' stage and quite happily and peacefully fast, pray daily and otherwise order their lives around Islam as they understand it. Sigh. Look - I know the dangers. I work in the national security arena. I've gotten some of the background briefings. By the way, 'taqiyya' is a much over-used term these days. Properly speaking, the term and doctrine were Shia, allowing deception of Sunni oppressors. Deceit against the infidel is a different doctrine. I suspect you're referring to the latter when you suggest that no Muslim can be trusted, ever. And the reason the Shia needed taqiyya is that some Sunnis invoked takfir against them - i.e. declared them non-Muslims and therefore no longer under the protections established for fellow Muslims. I personally hold to the Reagan Doctrine: trust, but verify - and no mercy to those who are shown to deceive. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-10-02 18:29 |
| #9 LOTP, if you're not familiar with MEMRI I suggest that you look them up. The mosques in the US are not the ones that control or spread the REAL word. Look up what the mosques in Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Qom, et al preach. That is the gospel of Islam. They preach slaughter and slavery. That is what they want in their Dar al Islam. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2011-10-02 18:03 |
| #8 --Continued. Too many links.-- 10% of mosques preach jihad against us in our very own country. You may think you know some moderate Muslims, but Islam is pretty explicit on how to be two faced when they do not have power. You want to know what they really think? Observe their wives who don't get out as much and are not as versed in the ways of taqiyya. Don't fall for it. Quran 3:28 “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” In Islam, the end justifies the means. Any trick to advance Islam is not only approved but celebrated. How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War |
| Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165 2011-10-02 16:21 |
| #7 80% of US mosques are Wahabi funded. The Saudis pick the imams and select the materials presented(pdf). |
| Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165 2011-10-02 16:20 |
| #6 I'm not quite as certain as you are, AlanC, that every mosque here and abroad preaches jihad as its key repeated focus. I am certain that the Islamicists want them to, and make the argument that it is required by Islam. I am also certain that at least a sizeable minority of muslims in the US just want to stay connected to the tradition they came from, and perhaps value the structure and discipline they associate with that tradition, without wanting to deal with the literal meanings. All or nothing demands are not unique to Islam, although that tradition seems to have taken the approach to an art form. Consider this Biblical verse: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. A pretty clear injunction, and one which the Salem, Massachusetts believers felt they needed to obey literally (as did quite a few Catholic believers in Europe a century or two earlier). So they tortured and then murdered a number of young and probably innocent women in the name of God. Fortunately, Christianity had and has developed theological approaches that allowed Christians to leave behind literal application of Old Testament laws and injunctions without leaving behind their faith. I say 'fortunately' because that was a key step that enabled the founding of this country on our Constitutional system. It won't be easy for Islam to make a similar growth in interpretation. Christians took centuries and a number of bloody wars until it got worked out in Europe and here, and I haven't a clue (and not much hope) that Islam will make the same leap. Moreover, for the many Muslims around the world who are virtually illiterate, 'Islam' = 'how we've always done things, our identity as a people'. Such identities don't change easiily even if dozens of internationally respected imams were to issue fatwas from Mecca. "Not much hope" is different, however, from "no hope, no possibility". And it appears that the community attempted to influence Khan away from violence and al Qaeda. They deserve credit for so doing. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-10-02 15:35 |
| #5 feeling besieged and assuming that most Americans have concerns about Islam out of ignorance and maybe some racism as well. The problem is not American ignorance but Muslim obtuseness. How many of the Imams of the various schools preach submission of Dar al Harb to Dar al Islam to be the goal of ALL muslims? Are Americans supposed to discount all of that in favor of a few (maybe) Muslim equivalents to Easter Catholics? Islam as defined and preached in the Koran is an all or nothing philosophy of theocratic totalitarianism. He thinks that the US is about equality and freedom for all. And it is What he doesn't understand is that America is NOT about geography, but about belief in a political philosophy that is the antithesis of everything Islam stands for. You can no more be a devout Muslim and an American than you can be a male bearing children. You can't say I'm free to murder because America preaches freedom. Islam means submission to the entire way of life. It is much more than a religion in the way we mean that now, more than an individuals relationship to the meta-physical realm. It purports to define, prescript and conscript every action and relationship among men and among men and goats. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2011-10-02 15:19 |
| #4 One comment that seems to get through re: Shariah is: "My mother's ancestors left their homes and came to American in 1733. They fought in the Revolution to avoid having to live under the Calvinist equivalent of Shariah. My father's family fought and died opposing the tyranny of the Soviets. I will fight and if necessary die to protect what they built here: a place where no religious laws or ideological control of people's daily lives will be imposed on me and mine." They may not quite understand why this is so important to me, but they do understand and respect the idea that an American might have principles worth more than life itself. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-10-02 13:54 |
| #3 Eohippus, I don't think it's that straightforward. I know a few Muslims well. Naturalized citizens, PhDs, moderate/modernized in their dress, speech, habits. They have no discomfort working with me as a Western woman - including when I push hard in the work place. I've given this a lot of thought and observation. I don't think they are secret Islamicists. But they do keep halal (despite the difficulties of doing so while on business travel here) and they do retain cultural roots for which Islam is a center. So they're caught in an awkward place, not supporting radical interpretations of Islam but also feeling besieged and assuming that most Americans have concerns about Islam out of ignorance and maybe some racism as well. Even if I were much more knowledgeable than I am about the 1500 year tradition of Islamic interpretations of the Qu'ran, I would not be a credible voice on such matters. So instead I quote the modern Muslims who make it clear *they* interpret the verses in ways we've come to know, and that those interpretations have led to ongoing attacks and murders. And I tell them what we all know here - that patience is running out on the part of Americans who are beginning to be fed up with the attacks, with Pakistan, etc. A backlash is coming, I warn - and while I sympathize with them I also warn that if they cannot effectively disassociate themselves from Islamicism by generating a compelling counter-narrative, they too will be swept up in the backlash. And therein lies the problem. As one of my Muslim colleagues describes his commitment to Islam, he refers to it as "not a religion (beliefs) but a way of life". He's bright, articulate and Westernized, but he's no theologian and neither has developed a counter interpretation vs. the hard jihadis nor carries the clout to be influential if he had done so. One last point: he is a dual citizen in the eyes of his country of origin and he doesn't understand why the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship. He thinks that the US is about equality and freedom for all. And it is - but the way we do that is to fiercely protect the secular identity of our laws and government. And we demand loyalty to the Constitution, and that each adult citizen take seriously his/her responsibility for protecting this rare way of governance. After a few rather heated exchanges, I think he's beginning to realize that for me and others, that principle is something we would fight and die to preserve. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-10-02 13:39 |
| #2 "We didn't turn our head like sometimes we get accused of, not wanting to stop something...as a Mohammedan, I opposed it, but as an American you have to support his right of freedom of speech. It's a fine line in this country." Sure Jibril. As a Muslim, you are against jihad*, but as an American, do your own thing. Kill Americans. Whatever. * Qur'an:2:216- "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not." [Another translation reads:] "Warfare is ordained for you." |
| Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165 2011-10-02 10:37 |
| #1 the Jawas and Rusty Shackelford have been having celebrations at Jawa Report recalling "Inshallahshaeed" and his threats on Rusty's family. "He who laughs last, laughs loudest. Also, the guy not killed in a drone strike. He laughs loudest, too." LOLz. Good times, good times |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-10-02 09:55 |