Updated(the aftermath) Rep. King to Press On With Radical Islam Hearings; and Reminder to Glenn Greenwald: The Islamists You Defend Want You Dead

Posted on March 12, 2011

Why Do Islamic Groups Fear Hearings on Islamic Radicalization?

by Patrick Poole

Because they are the radicalization problem. (Patrick Poole will be covering Thursday’s hearings live on PJTV. And don’t miss this PJTV FLASHBACK: “Roger Simon calls for congressional hearing on censorship of Islamic terminology”)

Dear Rep. King: Forget ‘Radical’ — Islam is the Culprit – Amil Imani

The Inanities of Peter Beinart

by Ron Radosh Why the columnist is wrong about Rep. Peter King’s hearings on Islamic radicalization.

King’s Important Service
Too many see an investigation into home-grown Islamism as a threat to civil rights.
Rich Lowry 03/11 12:00 A.M. AT WAR: THE KING HEARINGS

The New Paul Revere
Pete King’s hearings are well past due.
Deroy Murdock 03/10 2:30 P.M.

It’s Not Just Al-Qaeda
Real threats lurk in the Muslim community.
Clifford D. May 03/10 12:00 A.M.


Special Report

The Shame of Russell Simmons

Jeffrey Lord | 3.8.11 @ 6:08AM

Hip Hop mogul attacks Peter King hearings: Islamic radicals and the Ku Klux Klan

Rep. Keith Ellison wrote that the Constitution is evidence of a racist conspiracy

by Bryan Preston

The Tatler has an exclusive look at Ellison’s controversial 1989 article defending the Nation of Islam’s leaders.

NPRgate and the King Hearings

by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

The evidence James O’Keefe has provided of how open to penetration are key elements of our society should provide fresh encouragement to identify and root out the shariah-adherent “extremists” in the Muslim American community.

We don’t see eye to eye with you on all things Pete, but for darn sure we stand with you on this. Don’t back down and don’t capitulate.

Rep. King to Press On With Radical Islam Hearings

King plans to hold hearings on threat of Islamic radicals in U.S. despite backlash and planned protests

Look Mr President, et al, the U.S. is going to have to deal with the internal and external threat of radical Islam, aka a foreign and domestic threat, whether law-abiding Muslims like it or not. More over, why would muslims who are law-abiding, and especially those assimilating with America as a good citizen, mind that we are pursuing what is the criminal element of their former society or present community?

W.H. rejects stereotyping Islam – It fears alienating law-abiding Muslims.

King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he’s dismayed that American-Muslims are not more enthusiastic about the series of hearings, which begin Thursday, since they are the ones most victimized when radical elements infiltrate their communities.

  • American Moslems and Rep. King from American Thinker
  • Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the Islamic Forum, explains why he supports Peter King’s hearings on radicalization

  • National Focus on Debate on Muslim Radicalization
  • NYC Rally Protests Hearing on US Muslims
  • Obama Adviser Praises American-Muslim Anti-Terror Cooperation as Protesters Denounce King Hearings (protesters including Ground Zero Mosque Imam Rauf)

    VIOLENT EXTREMISM: From remarks prepared for delivery by Denis McDonough, the deputy national security adviser, on Sunday in Sterling, Va., about the administration’s strategy in countering domestic radicalism in the United States:

    “President Obama recognizes that through our words and deeds we can either play into al Qaeda’s narrative and messaging or we can challenge it and thereby undermine it. We’re determined to undermine it. For example, we know there are many different reasons why individuals—from many different faiths—succumb to terrorist ideologies. And there is no one easy profile of a terrorist. But based on extensive investigations, research and profiles of the violent extremists we’ve captured or arrested, and who falsely claim to be fighting in the name of Islam, we know that they all share one thing—they all believe that the United States is somehow at war with Islam, and that this justifies violence against Americans. So we are actively and aggressively undermining that ideology. We’re exposing the lie that America and Islam are somehow in conflict. That is why President Obama has stated time and again that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam.”

    After the speech, McDonough initially rebuffed reporters’ questions about whether his appearance was aimed in any way at Peter King’s planned hearings on the radicalization of Muslims. However, after being pressed, he offered what could be interpreted as a couched endorsement of the hearings. 

    “We welcome congressional involvement in the issue. It’s a very important issue,” McDonough said.


    Reminder to Glenn Greenwald: The Islamists You Defend Want You Dead

    by Lisa Richards
    Posted on March 5 2011 4:56 pm
    Lisa Richards is a life-long conservative Reagan girl educated in Political Science at Sacred Heart University. She resides in CT with her family and assortment of rescued pets.

    Salon‘s Glenn Greenwald has come out swinging his left fist against conservative protests of sharia law as he buries the left side of his brain in the sand in defense of Islam.

    It makes no difference to Salon’s Glenn Greenwald that America is under constant threat of attack by Islamists, and that thousands were murdered on 9/11. And never mind that radical Muslims brutalize their women through rape, torture, and murder referred to as “honor killing.” Greenwald feels Americans have no right to condemn Islam, call it violent, protest the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), or enact any legislation that would prevent Islam from imposing its sadistic sharia law on America.

    In Greenwald’s latest column, he writes as if Islam has been attacked and bloodied by Americans, referring to Islam as the victim of American hatred.  And Greenwald is slamming hard at legislators investigating Muslims in America who are tied to terrorism, as well as congressional attempts to prevent sharia from becoming part of American law:

    Next week, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) will convene a Congressional hearing to investigate the loyalty and ‘radicalization’ of American Muslims.  Earlier this week in Tennessee, a bill was proposed to make it a felony to follow Sharia law –which would essentially criminalize the practice of Islam in that state.  Last year, mosques in Tennessee, Oregon and Georgia were targeted with apparent arson.  The case against the Park51 community center—including from mainstream TV journalists—was grounded in the warped premise that Muslims generally bore guilt for the 9/11 attacks.   All of these sentiments are regularly bolstered by a deranged cult-leader/TV personality followed by millions.

    Greenwald is distressed that Islam is being ganged up on by “Tea Party members and other protesters [who] bombarded a charity event sponsored by a Muslim group,” demanding sharia law not be instituted in America.

    If Muslims “bombarded” a Jewish Passover feast or Christian Easter Sunday worship, would Greenwald call that deranged?  If Julian Assange spied on Islamic terror cells, would that be criminal?

    Greenwald obviously suffers from leftist amnesia.  He defends a radical movement that wants America conquered and non-Muslims converted or murdered. No TV journalist invented Islamic violence, Islam did.

    This leftist needs a memory recall.

    First:  All 19 terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 were Muslims acting on their beliefs; they were not members of the Vienna Boys Choir singing the Requiem Mass. Islam demands jihad (holy War) against all non-Muslims.  Therefore, Congressman King and House leaders better stand up against Islamic terror on American soil.  Murder in the name of Islam is not religious freedom.  But when it comes to Islam versus its protesters, Greenwald, like all leftists, turns a deaf ear and blind eye to the truth.

    Second: Islam is entirely radical; it demands bloodshed against non-Muslims. This sometimes takes the form of honor killings of those trying to leave Islam, even in America. Notice Greenwald ignores this.

    Third: Greenwald’s column conveniently ignores attacks on America by Muslims since 9/11: the Fort Hood massacre committed by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered 13 and wounded 32 as he screamed Allahu Akbar, Fort Dix, Times Square, the Shoe Bomber, The Christmas Day Underwear Bomber, the Little Rock, Arkansas Shooter, not to mention the list of Saudi terrorist communities in America.

    Greenwald handily disregards Islamic terror in America, focusing blame on Americans protesting Islam’s violence:

    [L]aws to criminalize a minority religion, formal government investigations into disloyalty from a minority group, violent attacks on their place of worship, and the intensity of the hate-mongering is anything but ‘glib.’

    Note to Greenwald, it’s Islam’s sharia Americans are against, not the Muslim individual. It’s Islamic terror the government wants investigated, they are not outlawing religion.  Let’s get it straight. Americans are not attacking mosques or Muslims.  It’s the other way around.  Protesting Mosque building and sharia law is not aggression, nor does it deny freedom of religion. Islam’s sharia law, however, does deny freedom of religion and the Constitution to Muslims.  Muslims must follow sharia or suffer execution.

    Fourth: Greenwald completely overlooks the fact that Islamic nations persecute and murder Christians and Jews: bombing Christian churches (1, 2, 3), attacking Christian homes in the Middle East, and demanding that all Jews be killed.

    Greenwald conveniently shoves his left brain in the sand on those truths. His defense of Islam holds no ground and he sides with a radical movement that denies freedom of religion and freedom in general.

    Leftists like Glenn Greenwald constantly feed Americans lies, demanding the country apologize for Islamic attacks on America.  Leftists never admit Islam is violent, they never own up to the fact 9/11 is the fault of Islam. Instead, they try to convince Americans they are Islamophobic hatemongers.

    This is the Left’s unholy alliance with Islamists.


    A Further Perspective

    Remember Times Square

    By on 3.9.11 @ 6:07AM

    On a rainy Sunday afternoon, several hundred protesters gathered in New York City to make their displeasure known with Long Island Republican Congressman Peter King’s impending hearings on “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response” which are due to commence on Thursday.

    The most peculiar aspect of this rally was not the presence of hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons nor was it the display of signs that read, “I am a Muslim, too.” Rather the most peculiar aspect of this rally was where it took place. After all, it was a mere ten months ago that Faisal Shahzad attempted to set off a car bomb in Times Square and if not for an alert street vendor there might not have been a Times Square at which to hold the rally much less for Dick Clark to bring in a new year.

    While Shahzad was not born and raised in the United States (although he did become an American citizen in 2009) the man who inspired him to carry out the plot most surely was. In the absence of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki is arguably the most powerful voice al-Qaeda has to offer. The fact that Awlaki was born in this country and spent a good part of his early childhood and early adulthood here makes him invaluable to al-Qaeda and that much greater a danger to the United States. Consider what Awlaki said during an audio recording he made in March 2010:

    I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim.

    So let us not forget that it was Awlaki’s literature that helped inspire the American born Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (formerly known as Carlos Leon Bledsoe) to carry out a drive-by shooting in front of a military recruitment center in Little Rock, Arkansas in June 2009. The shooting spree resulted in the death of Private William Long while wounding Private Quentin Ezeagwula. When authorities in Little Rock detained Muhammad he said, “It’s a war going on against Muslims, and that is why I did it.”

    So let us not forget that it was Awlaki’s e-mail correspondence with the American born Nidal Malik Hasan that helped spur him to shout “Allahu Akbar!!!” as he killed twelve of his fellow soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood in November 2009.

    And let us not forget it was Awlaki’s e-mail correspondence with the American born Abu Talhah al-Amrikee (formerly known as Zachary Chesser) that provided him with the inspiration in April 2010 to post an online message threatening South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone if an episode depicting the Prophet Mohammed was aired. Last month, Amrikee was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his threats to Parker and Stone as well as for his support of the Somali terror organization, al-Shabaab. While no one lost their lives, the threat prompted Comedy Central to not only pull the two-part episode after its initial airing but also pull a nearly decade old episode which also depicted Mohammed.

    So let us also not forget that when cartoonist Molly Norris attempted to show solidarity with the South Park creators by organizing “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” it was Awlaki himself who called for Norris to be killed. The FBI advised Norris to change her name, give up her livelihood and go into hiding, which she did last September.

    Now one could make the case that Awlaki’s influence only reaches but the thinnest sliver of America’s Muslim community. But when that thin sliver is enough to result in a person having to change her identity, a television network having to jettison its programming — and results in the deaths of American soldiers on American soil — then we have a problem that warrants governmental attention. You would think American Muslims would be eager to denounce those who commit such acts in their name and would welcome such scrutiny. But alas the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) states that King’s hearings “on the alleged ‘radicalization’ of American Muslims” have “sent a shudder through our community.” In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Georgetown University professor John Esposito (a convert to Islam) all too predictably likened King and the hearings as “a successor to Senator Joseph McCarthy and a new neo-McCarthyism.”

    Quite frankly, I don’t know what American Muslims are so afraid of. Representative King will have his hearings. Those hearings will likely result in a report with recommendations and those recommendations will be ignored by Congress, dismissed out of hand by the Obama Administration and be left to gather dust on the shelf. I suspect that by the time the dust is blown off King’s report it will be after someone has succeeded in turning Times Square into ash.

    Letter to the Editor

    Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.


    King’s Teach-In—Subpoena the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)

    Tuesday, March 01, 2011, 2:21:40 PM | Andrew BostomGo to full article

    Posted at Pajamas Media

    Wise counsel to Rep. King from legendary saxophonist

    Joe Henderson regarding this man, Katem Al-Hajj,

    and other AMJA clerics: “RECORDA-ME

    By Andrew Bostom and Al-Mutarjim

    Despite opposition from the usual alphabet soup of Muslim Brotherhood offshoot “advocacy” groups in the US, Congressman Peter King is forging ahead with planned mid-March hearings on what he terms domestic “Muslim radicalization.” In a December 19, 2010 Newsday opinion editorial Congressman King cited these eminently reasonable concerns as justification for the hearings:

    As I became more immersed in attempting to unravel the radical Islamic threat to our nation and our civilization, it became more and more obvious to me that the moral myopia of Long Island’s Muslim leaders and their apologists in the media was the rule – and that there were few exceptions. Federal and local law enforcement officials throughout the country told me they received little or – in most cases – no cooperation from Muslim leaders and imams…I also know of imams instructing members of their mosques not to cooperate with law enforcement officials investigating the recruiting of young men in their mosques as suicide bombers. We need to find the reasons for this alienation.

    We believe direct cross-examination of clerics from the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), including a frank discussion of their public “fatwas” (Islamic religious rulings), is essential to the Congressman’s critically important goal of understanding Muslim radicalization in America.

    The AMJA mission statement maintains the organization was,

    …founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities…

    A report in The Muslim Observer published October 21, 2010 highlighting AMJA’s “seventh annual American conference of imams,” confirms that the organization is accepted as such by the mainstream American Muslim community. AMJA and its recent “training” conference for American imams were described in these banal terms:

    The organization AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) has a list of scholars associated with it which stretches from Al-Azhar University to Virginia’s Open University, and back across the ocean to the professors at Saudi universities.  Its website, amjaonline.com, provides fatawa on many issues and promises 24-hour access to scholars who can give legal opinions on the issues people face. AMJA focuses on providing fatwas to Americans, and believes it is able to provide culturally appropriate fatwas although many of their scholars are not American–because they have some American scholars and because of the technological ties that bind AMJA’s American scholars with those abroad. AMJA just had, in Houston, its seventh annual American conference of imams, and two local Michigan imams attended, namely Imam Musa of Bloomfield’s Muslim Unity Center, and Imam Ali of MCWS. Mr. Sadiqul Hassan of AMJA explained that “the event was the 7th annual imam workshop…”  Mr. Hassan said that AMJA is “a fiqh council basically,” with “scholars who live abroad and inside the US; we have experts in different fields to educate about life in the US–fatawa are based on life in the US.”

    Notwithstanding this mainstream acceptance, including uncritical endorsement of its recent seventh annual American conference in Houston (October 15-18, 2010) to train American imams, AMJA has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates, “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”),  or adulterers (by stoning to death), and condone marital rape, and female genital mutilation. Moreover, AMJA, despite some equivocation, has also issued a blatantly anti-American fatwa directed at US troops and their mission, which was deemed an “occupation.” Indeed, as AMJA cleric Katem Al-Hajj explained in a 23 pp. 2007 fatwa forbidding US Muslims to work for the FBI or US security services because of the ostensible harm these institutions cause Muslims, Muslim minorities in non-Islamic countries are “…subject to man-made laws, which Islamic law [Sharia] does not recognize, either fully or in part.”

    AMJA, consistent with modern fatwas published by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, president of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), and other prominent, mainstream Muslim clerics in Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, and Malaysia, has mandated lethal punishment for apostates from Islam. These specific rulings on so-called “apostasy” from Islam were issued by AMJA in 2006 and 2009:

    Dr. Hatem al-Haj  2006-04-17 As for the Sharia ruling, it is the punishment of killing for the man with the grand Four Fiqh Sharia scholars, and the same with the woman with the major Shari`ah scholars, and she is jailed with Al-Hanafiyyah scholars, as the prophet, prayers and peace of Allah be upon him, said: “Whoever a Muslim changes his/her religion, kill him/her”, and his saying: “A Muslim`s blood, who testifies that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, is not made permissible except by three reasons: the life for the life; the married adulterer and the that who abandons his/her religion”.

    Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah  2009-01-02 Under the authority of the Muslim state, the People of the Book have the right to stay on their belief without being compelled to embrace Islam. But if one of them has embraced Islam, it would not be acceptable from him to go back to his original religion. The same rule applies to those who are born into Muslim families. According to the Islamic Law, they cannot commit apostasy.

    Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah  2009-04-10 As for the second one, the “people” in this hadith means either the apostates who had become Muslim and then retreated to disbelief thereafter, or the polytheists who do not attribute themselves to any divine religion. This second possible meaning has been mentioned in Imam Al-Nasa’i’s narration: “I have been commanded to fight against the polytheists until they…” In Islam, neither of these categories of people is allowed to remain on their religion. The fact that there is no compulsion in religion does not negate the other fact that someone who has embraced Islam cannot change his mind afterward and embrace polytheism.

    Germane 2006-2009 AMJA rulings also sanction hateful attitudes towards non-Muslims, and the murder of those—including non-Muslims—who “blaspheme” Islam’s prophet Muhammad.

    Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah  2007-07-22, on “Unbelievers,” i.e. non-Muslims: Our belief is that Islam is the final divine religion, supersedes all other divine religions, and that all other religions are abrogated by the prophet hood of Mohammad PBUH. In another words; no one has the right to stay on his/her Christianity or Judaism after the prophecy of Mohammad PBUH. Based on the above, if any one from the people of scriptures has received the message of Islam clearly, yet, insisted on his belief, then he is- from an Islamic perspective- a disbeliever. Our doctrine is that paradise is granted for all original Muslims, and for those who embraced Islam after acknowledging the prophecy of Mohammad PBUH. Meanwhile, we believe that hellfire is granted for the disbelievers, which include anyone did not believe in the prophethood of the messenger that he/she lived during his/her life. This includes anyone that received the message of Islam, and passed away before embracing Islam.


    Dr. Salah Al-Sawy 2009-01-21, on “Blaspheming” Muhammad, the Muslim prophet: [F]or those scholars who say that repentance of a person who insults Allaah or His Messenger shall not accepted, [they] mean that repentance does not lift up the set punishment for cursing and insulting the Prophet,  i.e., execution. Because the Prophet is the one who was actually wronged and insulted and he is no longer alive, therefore, he is not alive to practice his right to forgive him [the blasphemer] for what he did. Also, no Muslim is ever is entitled or authorized to forgive on the Prophet’s behalf.

    Additional AMJA rulings validate stoning adulterers to death, and uphold the notion that marital rape is not a crime.

    Rendered by Dr. Hatem al-Hajj, June 22, 2006—Question: “I am married but recently being away on a business trip, I happed to go to a adult club where I came in close contact with a dancer. We touched each other and kissed but there was no actual intercourse involved. I remain fully clothed and she had her top off. Is this act considered zina punishable by pelting? Please clarify. I shouldn`t have commited this act of sin and am ashamed of it.” Fatwa (Islamic Legal Ruling): “All praise be to Allah, and may his peace and blessings be on the last and best prophet and messenger, Muhammad.   Since you are ashamed and you have repented sincerely, Allah is all forgiving, so don`t loose hope in his mercy and forgiveness. The act you have committed – as you appear to know – is an offensive sin, and it is a form of fornication, as the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace)  indicated that the eyes comit fornication by looking…etc. Yet, it is not the absolute zina punishable by al-hadd. (the prescribed punishment of zina, which is stoning in the case of a married man). The later must involve intercourse. May Allah protect you, and save your deen and honor.   Allah knows best.”

    Responding to the specific query, “Is there a such thing as Marital Rape?”, AMJA issued fatwa #2982:

    In the name of Allah, all praise is for Allah, and may peace and blessing be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family. To proceed: For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.

    AMJA rulings also support the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), which the United Nations has called “a dangerous and potentially life-threatening procedure that causes unspeakable pain and suffering.” Fatwa #1639 from Dr. Hatem al-Haj justifies the horrific practice, saying:

    […] Some extremists from the west and their devout followers in the Muslim world like to brand all circumcision as female genital mutilation (FGM). For those, we say, why is male circumcision not MGM? Male circumcision is widely practiced in the west. Yet it would be considered by the Chinese MGM (Male Genital Mutilation).


    The benefits of male circumcision are beginning to be more recognized in the medical societies, even though still contested by a few. Fifty years ago, no one knew that male circumcision has medical benefits. The same could be true with female circumcision. They may figure out the benefits of the practice in fifty or five hundred years. […]

    A concordant fatwa issued in Arabic (translation by Al-Mutarjim) on the website of the Secretary-General of AMJA and the chief member of its Resident Fatwa Committee, Dr. Salah Al-Sawy, declares that FGM is “an honor” for women:

    But for the woman, the purpose [of circumcision] is the benefit that it has in lessening her lust, which is a wholesome request. There is no harm in removing it. In short, female circumcision is an honor (which) does not rise to the level of a duty, in clear language. Stated another way, it is neither forbidden nor required.

    Another Arabic-language fatwa (translation by Al-Mutarjim) from Dr. Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether “the Islamic missionary effort in the West…[was] to the point where it could take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:

    […] The Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.[emphasis added]

    Finally, it is of grave concern that AMJA, as an American organization, offers only grudging and conditional support to the fundamental notions of acquiring citizenship in, and swearing allegiance to the US and our Sharia- antithetical governing legal system. Responding to the query, “Is acquiring an American citizenship lawful or prohibited?”, AMJA issued fatwa #77223:

    […] As for optionally obtaining citizenship of a non-Muslim country it is definitely prohibited without a doubt, moreover it could be a form of apostasy or main means leading to apostasy because willingly accepting the laws of disbelievers and obeying it without any valid excuse or enforcement, or ignorance is considered a nullifier to Tawheed and Islam, as long as the proof has been established upon this person and the matter and its consequences are as I clarified. As for obtaining citizenships in light of circumstances of Muslims today who are residing outside the lands of Islam – on the condition that they do not accept indefinitely the law and legislation of that country and being indefinite belonging to the nation of the non-Muslim country so that they become loyal to all their allies and an enemy to all their enemies – and obtaining the citizenship is considered a required means in order to organize the affairs of Muslims who already live there while ensuring fulfilling vows and agreements between them and host countries, and exists due to urgent necessities and needs and this Muslim kept his loyalty to Allaah and His Messenger, then it would not be farfetched to say that it would be permissible. […] [emphasis added]

    Given these odious, if unabashed public rulings, it is incumbent upon Representative King and his committee staff to subpoena (if necessary) the AMJA clerics who have issued them. We believe that publicizing and elaborating the “rationalizations” for such Islamic rulings by these clerics—authoritative representatives of mainstream, institutional Islam—will afford critical insights into the radicalization of American Muslims.

    All Articles Copyright © 2007-2011 Dr. Andrew Bostom


    Posted in: Uncategorized