Deception is permissible and even prescribed in Islam through the practices of “Taqiyya,” “Tawriya,” “Kitman,” and “Muruna”

takiyya-yusef

Various forms of deception are permissible in Islam as specified in the Quran, consisting of four different types of deceit known as “Muruna,” “Taqiyya,” “Tawriya,” and “Kitman.”   Such deceptive practices manifest in numerous ways, including in the agendas of many Islamic organizations and in Islamic media.

ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF “MURUNA”

Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or surroundings, believing that it is permissible to deceitfully behave in an un-Islamic manner if it serves the greater goal of advancing Islam.

View a video explaining the Islamic “Muruna” strategy:

Walid Shoebat, a former member of the PLO who has reformed and converted to Christianity, explains how the extremist Muslim Brotherhood organization makes use of the “Muruna” strategy by temporarily behaving in a moderate fashion to gain the trust of the West in order to ensure their long term strategy of subjugating the entire world with Sharia law.  He cites as an example what has recently happened during Egypt’s so-called “secular revolution” which was actually a Brotherhood cover to implement Islamic extremism.

Shoebat explains that Sheikh Yusef Abdallah al-Qaradwi, who was involved in the overthrow of Egypt, had said, “.. to balance between good and evil, and if the good and evil conflict with each other we make priority as to when we put ahead evil for the sake of an interest, and determine when an evil deed is forgiven for the sake of an interest.” … In other words, al-Qaradwi has been rationalizing his doing evil things for the sake of so-called “good.”

ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF “TAQIYYA”

The information in this section is summarized from this article by Raymond Ibrahim:

The Quran is known for permitting Muslims to be deceptive in certain situations, including when reconciling two or more quarreling parties, when placating one’s spouse, and for gaining strategic advantage during war;  however, in most other cases the Quran is opposed to Muslims deceiving other Muslims, but deception directed at non-Muslims is acceptable and is legally permissible, usually being known as “taqiyya.

Taqiyya has historically been used by Islam as a defense against religious persecution or as a jihadist weapon against unbelievers, and in fact it is often depicted as being equal or superior to other military virtues such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

According to Shari’a, which are the legal rulings which define how Muslims should behave in all circumstances, deception is permitted in many situations and it is even obligatory in others.   For example, Muslims are permitted to lie and feign apostasy (abandoning one’s religion) rather then suffer persecution.   Taqiyya is fundamental to Islam, essentially every sect agrees to it and practices it, and it is prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.

The following two paragraphs are authoritative Islamic commentaries concerning the matter:

“If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority].   Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.”   Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923)

“Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.”  As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”   Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].” (Ibn Kathir d. 1373)

Prominent Muslim Scholars such as Abu ‘Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi ‘d-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended taqiyya to allow Muslims to behave like infidels or worse— such as by worshiping idols, offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy— anything short of actually killing another Muslim: “Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity—even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.” (Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, pp. 30-7)

The earliest historical records of Islam show the prevalence of taqiyya as a form of Islamic warfare, where Muslims would lie their way out of binds by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad at the approval of the latter. (Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, pp. 11-2)   “Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids [crusades] of the Franks and others.” (Ibid., pp. 41-2)

People of all religions are known to practice deception in war, but Islam will never stop thinking of itself as being at war until it conquers the entire Earth.

From the original article:  “… Deception of the enemy during war is only common sense.  The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur’an, ‘all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God.’ (Qur’an 8:39)”

EmileTyan states in his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam: “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained.  Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily.”

In fact, all four schools of Sunni agree that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and the infidels refuse.”

Unprovoked Islamic expansionist Jihad is made acceptable in the eyes of many mainstream Muslims by their viewing it as an “altruistic endeavor,” where non-Muslims are thought of as “living in bondage” due to being deprived of the goodness that would exist by all humanity living in accordance with Islamic law.

Muhammad and Islam are well known for abruptly and brutally breaking war treaties in surprise attacks once the Muslim forces have regrouped for renewing their offensives.   They justify this by believing (even without evidence) that if their opponents are about to break the treaty, they can preempt by breaking it first, and also Muslim leaders are allowed by certain Muslim schools to “abrogate” treaties for any reason that would be advantageous for Islam.

In modern days, militant Islamic leaders such as Osama bin Laden address their victims saying they are attacking due to specific “grievances” which they list, but they never mention the fact that the attacks are actually mostly due to their targets simply being non-Muslim infidel entities.

The Quran states: “We [Muslims] renounce you [non-Muslims].   Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in God alone” (Qur’an 60:4)

Muslims who have a particularly zealous belief in Islam are more likely  to not able to be detected as being deceitful due to the fact that they think of themselves as genuinely doing god’s work when lying.

The following are the closing paragraphs from the original article:

“… [M]ost Westerners continue to think that Muslim mores, laws, and ethical constraints are near identical to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Naively or arrogantly, today’s multiculturalist leaders project their own worldview onto Islamists, thinking a handshake and smiles across a cup of coffee, as well as numerous concessions, are enough to dismantle the power of God’s word and centuries of unchanging tradition.  The fact remains: Right and wrong in Islam have little to do with universal standards but only with what Islam itself teaches—much of which is antithetical to Western norms.”

“… [I]f war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam ‘until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God.’ (Qur’an 8:39)”

ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF “TAWRIYA”

The information in this section has been summarized from this article by Raymond Ibrahim:

From the article:  “… Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is true to him.”

Tawriya is a manner of “creative lying” by making use of “double-entendres,” where the speaker says something that means one thing  while the listener thinks it means something else, during which the speaker’s words technically support the listener’s alternate meaning.

For example, if someone says “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” the listener would assume that the speaker means that he doesn’t have any money at all, but a speaker practicing tawriya might actually have other currency such as quarters or dollar bills.  Another example would be someone asking “Where’s Mike?” with the person answering who doesn’t want to divulge Mike’s location by saying “I don’t know” while deceptively picturing a different Mike in his mind.

From the article:  “All these are legitimate according to Sharia law and do not constitute ‘lying,’ which is otherwise forbidden in Islam, except in three cases: lying in war, lying to one’s spouse, and lying in order to reconcile people.  For these, Sharia permits Muslims to lie freely, without the strictures of tawriya, that is, without the need for creativity.”

In all other cases, according to the words of Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid: “Tawriya is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the hidden meaning;  2) that it does not lead to an injustice” (With the “injustice” defined by Sharia rather than Western standards).

Muhammad had said, “Allah has commanded me to equivocate [(meaning to use ambiguous language to conceal the truth)] among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation [(meaning to confuse or bewilder)]”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation [(meaning concealment of one’s thoughts, feelings, or character)] dies a martyr” (Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).

Many Muslim leaders are known for using tawriya, such as Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, who is the founder of one of Islam’s four schools of law in Saudi Arabia.  Once when he was teaching a class, someone came knocking asking for one of his students, to whom bin Hanbal answered, “He’s not here.  Why would he be here?”, while pointing to his hand, making the person falsely assume that the student wasn’t in the room.

Following is another example of tawriya:  Imagine someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, but a Muslim practicing “tawriya” might reply, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians,” while knowing that despite the fact that it never technically mentions them by name, the word “those” in that passage is meant to refer to them nonetheless.

The same sort of deception would be used where someone would say “he’s not here” when someone comes asking for a person at the front door, with the speaker actually only meaning that the person isn’t in that particular room of the house.

From the article:  “… As Sheikh al-Munajid puts it: ‘Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a Sharia interest.’  Consider the countless ‘Sharia interests’ that run directly counter to Western civilization and law, from empowering Islam to subjugating infidels.  To realize these, Muslims, through tawriya, are given a blank check to lie—a check that surely comes in handy: not just in trivial occasions, like avoiding unwanted callers, but momentous ones, such as at high-level diplomatic meetings where major treaties are forged.”

ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF “KITMAN”

The information in this section has been summarized from this article by Louis Palme:

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of a truth, for example if a Muslim were to say that Jihad refers to an “internal spiritual struggle” when actually only a few passages in the Quran refer to it that way.

Another common use of kitman is to quote peaceful passages from the Quran that actually have been “abrogated” by contradictory militant verses which have been written later and are required to take precedence.  Here is an example:

(earlier) “There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256) Early Medina

(later abrogated) “Are they seeking a religion other than Allah’s, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?” (Surah 3:83) Later Medina

Another example:

(earlier) “Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged.” (Surah 22:39) Late Mecca

(later abrogated) “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them.  Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” (Surah 9:5) Late Medina

A Muslim cleric in a British mosque has been recorded preaching to teenagers that it is permissible in Islam to capture women as sex slaves (then he issued a rebuttal but questions remain)

A Muslim preacher named Ali Hammuda at the British Al-Manar mosque had been secretly recorded by an undercover reporter during a religious study gathering telling a group of teenagers that it is permissible in Islam to capture women as sex slaves.  The event was publicized by posters fringed with drawings of sports equipment, also saying “Brothers Only, Ideal age 13-18.  Followed by indoor football.”

In the recording Hammuda tells the boys “[It is prophesied that] towards the end of time there will be many wars like what we are seeing today, and because of these wars women will be taken as captives, as slaves … And then her master has relations with her because this is permissible in Islam, it’s permissible to have relations with a woman who is your slave or your wife.”

The recording was made in 2014, soon before reports of ISIS atrocities where more than 5,000 women and girls were abducted in northern Iraq where they were enslaved, raped, or executed.  The recording was only recently made public.

Undercover reporter Rizwan Syed, who made the recording, also found a range of extremist literature in the mosque, including books preaching “..brutal violence, sexism, homophobia, aggressive physical jihad, dismemberment and capital punishment implemented by the state.”

Many of the most notorious British jihadis who have joined the Islamic State in Syria have worshiped at the Al-Manar Mosque, including the trio of the “Cardiff jihadis” who appear in an ISIS recruitment video, of which Reyaad Khan was killed in an RAF drone strike.

The Mosque has also hosted many extremist visiting preachers, including Muhammad Mustafa Al-Muqri, an Al Qaeda ally and ex-leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

See this Daily Mail UK article about this issue. 

_______

NOTE:  8/14/16— ALI HAMMUDA’S REBUTTAL

Hammuda issued a lengthy and indignant response to the allegations made against him by the Daily Mail, but ultimately he failed to convincingly convey why the words he spoke in the recording were taken out of context as he claimed them to be.

The primary claim of Hammuda’s rebuttal is that the recording is of him speaking about an Islamic writing known as the “Narration of Jibril”, which he says is “known to pretty much all Muslims verbatim.”  However he doesn’t explain why talking about that particular text would somehow make the words he spoke be taken out of context.

He goes on to say that he considers the taking of girls as sex slaves to be an “abhorrent abomination”, and cites statements that he made at a public event on November 11, 2015, where he mentioned being opposed to the activities of ISIS including their taking of sex slaves.  He made those statements at the event in response to allegations that his Mosque was radicalizing youths to fight for ISIS.

Hammuda also claims that he has expended much time speaking out against the evils of ISIS in his lectures, but nonetheless he didn’t voice a negative opinion about what he was talking about when he was recorded speaking to the boys in private.

Also despite the length Hammuda’s response, he didn’t reply to the allegations of extremist literature being found in the mosque.

Some other points Hammuda mentioned are as follows:

— He claims the word “slave” as he used it was taken out of context, saying “the description of ‘slaves’ in the Western sense is a million miles away from the Islamic notion.”

— He acknowledges that the Daily Mail did mention that he has refuted ISIS, but he said that it was “sandwiched in the small print between big, angry slogans and pictures, explicitly painting lies…”

— He said one of the three “Cardiff jihadist” Reyaad Khan actually didn’t attend Cathays high school as the Daily Mail article claimed.

— He argued that since the lecture in question was an hour in length and the recording is only 56 seconds, then “it therefore goes without saying that the snippet has been decontextualized from the message and purpose of the overall lecture itself.”

_______

MUSLIM COUNCIL OF WALES SUPPORTS HAMMUDA AFTER ALLEGATIONS

Recently the Muslim Council of Wales (MCW), a Muslim umbrella group including the Imams of all mosques in Wales, had issued a written statement backing the Imam Ali Hammuda who recently made headlines being secretly recorded preaching to teens that it is permissible in Islam to take women as sexual slaves.

In their statement they said, “Hammuda’s comments have been misrepresented and are slanderous and untrue, as Ali Hammuda has himself clarified clearly and unequivocally,” also saying that Hammuda’s positions against extremism, racism, and bigotry are well known.

They also mentioned that the Al-Manar Mosque is vocal and committed to countering the ideology of ISIS and radicalization, and said, “All mosques and Muslim institutions in Wales are committed to teaching morals and values of the Islamic tradition, compassion, forgiveness, the sacredness of all human life, and the equality and personhood of every individual, male and female.”

Mona Walter is a Somalian born ex-Muslim activist in Sweden who informs Muslims about issues with the Quran

Following is a summary of a CBN News article that contains the original video: 

View a CBN news segment about the ex-Muslim activist Mona Walter.   Following is a description of the information in the video:

Mona Walter is a Somalian born Swedish activist who is an ex-Muslim that is on a mission to inform Muslims about what is actually in the Koran.

She came to Sweden from Somalia in the 1990s as a war refugee when she was 19, only to discover how oppressive Islam actually was once she arrived.

Mona explains that in Somalia most people are simply born into the religion and are generally not very well informed about it, but in Sweden Muslims expect others to be extremely devout and obedient, and it was then when she read the Quran and learned about many aspects of Islam that she disagreed with.   She became discouraged and initially became an Atheist, and then converted to Christianity.

Soon she started to become and activist by copying disagreeable verses from the Quran and handing them out to Muslim woman on the street, usually when dressed in a disguise of wearing a Burka.    However, in politically correct Sweden Mona has come under attack in the media for criticizing Islam.

Mona explains that people in Sweden take their freedom of religion for granted, but Muslim women in Sweden really don’t have those same freedoms under Islamic law.

She lives under death threats and sometimes travels with police protection, and when she travels in Muslim areas she needs to be disguised in a Burka otherwise she risks being attacked and killed.

Mona now uses videos and speaking appearances to spread her messages, and she says that she won’t stop even though her life is in danger. 

Islamist terror organizations are recruiting from disaffected Somali refugees in Minnesota

Image from Flickr.

Following is a summary of a Washington Times article:  

Tens of thousands of Somali refugees have been brought mostly to Minneapolis, Minnesota since the 1990s, with over a thousand arriving last year, often having problems assimilating and sometimes being targeted for recruitment by Islamic extremist groups.

“We have definitely seen targeted terror recruitment videos, videos aimed and targeted directly at the youth here in Minnesota primarily within the Somali community,” said Kyle Loven, an FBI spokesman in Minneapolis. “They’re going after disaffected youth — those who are isolated.”

Loven says the FBI has noticed a steady stream of Islamist recruitment videos specifically targeted at Minnesota’s Somali population, saying the FBI has established a strong liaison program within the Somali community to work with organizations and people who have a general uneasiness about their population being targeted.  “The videos and the online messaging is clearly targeting youths from within the Somali community and it’s a challenge for law enforcement to determine who will be moved to action with these videos,” he said.

Since 2008, as many as 40 men from Minneapolis have joined Islamist groups after being recruited by jihadists through social media, according to federal officials.

Last year an American named Douglas McArthur died in Syria fighting for the Islamic State, and he had been recruited from where he lived in Minnesota.

In 2009, a friend of McArthur named Troy Kastigar posted a recruitment video for an Islamic terrorist group al-Shabab before being killed fighting for them in Somalia.

Also in 2009 another man from Minnesota joined al-Shabab and blew himself up in a suicide bombing at an Ethiopian consulate in Somalia, killing 24 people.

On Sunday, al-Shabab made a propaganda video warning about attacks on shopping malls around the world, including the Mall of America in Minnesota.  Al-Shabab claimed responsibility for the terror attack at a shopping mall in Kenya two years ago that left 67 dead.

In an effort to increase assimilation and deter against Islamic recruitment efforts, government agencies have greatly expanded state welfare programs to be the most generous in the country, but the problems remain including high unemployment with only 41% of males working.

A man in Germany who shouted at a recent Muslim gunman trying to stop him after nine people had already been killed may face prosecution for “insulting the killer” (because he called him a “F—ing Turk”)

Following is a summary of this Express UK article

A man who stood up to a Muslim gunman in Munich after he killed nine people may be charged by a prosecutor for “insulting the killer.”

57 year old Thomas Salbey saw the shooting happening from his balcony on July 22, and he yelled at the 18 year old gunman saying “I’m a German!” and he threw a beer bottle at the him.   Salbey later said “All I had was a beer bottle to throw at him, but if I had a gun I would have shot him in the head.”

Sonboly had just shot nine people dead, most of them young teenagers that he lured to a local McDonald’s with a promise of free food.

Shockingly, Mr. Salbey now may be facing charges for standing up to the killer.    Florian Weinzierl, a spokesman for the Munich State Prosecutor’s office confirmed that Salbey is being investigated, saying that what he will be charged with remains to be established as well as if the charges will actually be brought forward, but Weinzierl suggested that the charges could include “insults to the detriment of the dead.”

(Note:  The New York Daily News reports that Salbey yelled at the gunman saying “F—ing Turk,” which would explain why the charges are being brought against him by leftist Germany.)

Authorities covered up the fact that the Somalian immigrant who went on a stabbing rampage in London was a devout Muslim

Darlene Horton (left) died in the attack, Bernard Hepplewhite (center) was hospitalized for several days with severe abdominal wounds, and Yovel Lewkowski (right) was stabbed but survived.
Darlene Horton (left) died in the attack, Bernard Hepplewhite (center) was hospitalized for several days with severe abdominal wounds, and Yovel Lewkowski (right) was stabbed but survived.

Following is a summary of this Infowars article

Authorities and the media blamed the stabbing of six people in London this week on “mental illness,” after initially circulating reports that the Muslim Somali immigrant attacker was “a white chubby man,” and later they insisted on calling him “Norwegian.”

Zak Bulhan went on a rampage in London on Wednesday night which left five people injured and the wife of an American professor dead.  Bulhan was likely inspired by the ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammed al Adnani who calling for potential jihadists to launch stabbing attacks against western “disbelievers.”

Bulhan’s former school friend Rakesh Naidu said that the killer was “a devout Mulism and he would passionately defend it,” and another student from Bulhan’s school said “This is the first time I’ve heard of him having mental health problems.”

Also Bulhan’s neighbor said that his mother “always wore a black full burka,” and Bulhan has also been found to give support online for various Islamic terrorists.

MSNBC: Trump’s immigration proposals vetting terrorist countries can’t be done because it would “cost $100 billion” and “cripple immigration”

In an MSNBC program recorded yesterday, hosts speak with a group of guests about Donald Trump’s proposals concerning immigration, basing their information and opinions on outdated claims which Trump made in the past rather than on his current modified proposals which are much more workable.  A guest claims that Trump’s immigration proposals would “cost as much as $100 billion” while actually basing his projection on vetting every person who would visit the U.S. rather than the suspension of immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism.

At the beginning of the clip, old footage (December 2015) is shown of Donald Trump saying the following:  “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” but they fail to note that Trump has changed his stance since then.

Then they show a more recent July 21 2016 clip:  “We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism, until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place, we don’t want them in our country.”

Following are excerpts from the conversation which ensues:  

ARI MELBER (who claims he spoke with over twenty homeland security experts):  “There’s been questions about whether this is legal, whether it’s a good idea. We dug in because he is the major party nominee on what it would actually take.  … [ Here are ] quotes we got talking to people who are ICE, DHS, border security, they say: ‘impractical, unworkable, impossible, not doable.’”

HOST: “Did anyone tell you it could be done?”

ARI MELBER:  “Some people looked at the price estimate, I can show you that there are 189 million entries to the U.S. in a year that are non-immigrant entries [ people who temporarily visit the country with passports ].  So if you take that and you say actually that you want to patrol and vet those people for their beliefs or their religion, you have to start looking at what the top Muslim nations are.  …  A ballpark figure right now, we spend about $21.5 billion dollars on immigration enforcement.  We were told by officials that … it would be up to $100 billion just to set up a kind of global vetting system to look at people’s beliefs.”

A Washington D.C. Muslim police officer was arrested for aiding Islamic State terrorists on the job

Following are key points from this Washington Post article

A Muslim Washington D.C Metro Transit officer Nicholas Young was arrested for providing support to ISIS terrorists after being monitored by authorities for over seven years.  The go-ahead to arrest Young was given when he sent mobile messaging cards to an undercover federal agent thinking they would be used by Islamic State fighters overseas to communicate.

During the seven years under surveillance Young has engaged in activities such as:

— He had given advice to suspected terrorists while on patrol and bragged about wishing to join ISIS

— He threatened FBI agents and also assisted jihadists

— He threatened to kidnap and torture an FBI agent and sink the head of anyone who crossed him to the bottom of a lake

— He threatened to bring guns into a federal courtroom

— He traveled to Libya twice in 2011 to fight against Moammar Gaddafi.

— He gave a person working with law enforcement advice on how to travel to Syria, including how to avoid undercover agents

— He dressed up as a “Jihadi John” at a 2014 Halloween party carrying around a headless orange jumpsuit filled with paper, and he dressed up as a Nazi and carried around Nazi memorabilia

— He collected a large number of firearms including an AK-47 RPG

Khizr Khan, the Muslim who spoke at the DNC, has been a strong supporter and acknowledged expert of barbaric Islamic Sharia law doctrine

Khizr Kahn at DNC
Image from Wikipedia.

[Note: Updated March 7, 2020—  Kahn has responded to allegations of supporting Sharia law in the past but made deceptive claims in doing so.   See the end of this post for more information.]

Following is a summary of this Breitbart article:  

Khizr Muazzam Khan, the U.S. Constitution touting Muslim who spoke against Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention has been revealed to be an acknowledged expert on Islamic Sharia Law.

Sharia law dictates that men have the right to beat their wives, punishment for theft is amputation, insulting Muhammad is a crime punishable by death, rape victims need to produce four male witnesses or face adultery charges themselves, and with punishments for other infractions ranging from stonings to floggings to beheadings.

In 1983, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book where he singled out for praise a pro-jihad Muslim jurist named Allah K. Brohi, who was one of the closest advisers to Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement.   In the review, Khan spoke admirably of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic law and the right of men to beat their wives.   Khan never mentioned having any issues with Brohi’s interpretations of human rights, but instead wrote that Brohi “successfully” explains and argues his points “convincingly.”   Khan also concurred in his review that human rights can only be guaranteed through the establishment of Sharia law, saying “There is no such thing as human right in the abstract.”

Brohi was the Pakistani Minister of Law and Religious Affairs at the time, and he restored the enforcement of the full range of Sharia laws to that country.   Khan now claims to have immigrated to the U.S. in the 1980’s to “escape Pakistan’s Military Rule,” despite the fact that he spoke very admirably of Brohi in his review back then.

Khan also wrote another academic paper in 1983 entitled “Juristic Classification of Islamic Law,”  where he states that the Quran is the “absolute authority,” and that all other juridical works must always be subordinate to Sharia law.   His 13-page article was published in the Houston Journal of International Law and has been cited by dozens of Islamic law articles and has also been used in college syllabi for Islamic courses at least until 2013.

The Clinton campaign and establishment media portrait Khan as a “Pakistani-American Lawyer,” but of course they don’t mention Khan being an acknowledged expert on Sharia law.

There is no evidence that Khan has ever recanted his support for the anti-Constitional Sharia law, other than the fact that he waved a pocket constitution around during his speech at the DNC.

_______

NOTE:  Khan has given a response to allegations that he has been a Sharia law supporter in the past, but in his response he does not deny what he has written about it but instead gives a vague and misleading description of what Sharia law is, and then states that he “does not stand for any Sharia law because there is no such thing.”

In this video clip from a CNN broadcast, Khan states:

“Sharia Law as we have titled it is no such thing as Sharia Law.   These are laws of various Muslim countries which are hodge podge of British laws, French laws, Portuguese Laws.   In there, there is tremendous discrimination of genders, which disqualifies them under the Constitution of the United States, cannot be implemented, cannot be brought.   How can I be a person that has read this, I preach that I do not stand for any Sharia law because there is no such thing.”

.. In the clip after video of Khan speaking, a host chimes in appearing to reiterate what Khan just said, but while doing so she injects a claim that Khan never actually made in his statement:  “.. he doesn’t stand for it, he never has stood for it, he carries around the US Constitution, he abides by the US Constitution.”   If Khan didn’t actually write about Sharia law in the past as being a strong supporter, it would have been the first thing he mentioned in his statement.

Sharia Law is already being implemented in Britain where it supersedes English law for Muslims, and many American Muslims support the idea of Sharia Law being implemented in the United States.

20 Mosques have been shut in France since December for preaching radical Islam

Image from BigStockPhoto.

Following is a summary of this theJ0urnal.ie article:  

The Interior Minister of France Bernard Cazeneuve has said that around 20 Mosques and prayer halls in France have been shut down by authorities since December for preaching radical Islam, and 80 people have been expelled from the country since 2012.  The article also mentions that there are currently 2,500 mosques in France, with up to 120 of them preaching radical Salafism, which is a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.