Khizr Kahn, the Muslim father of a US soldier who died in Iraq, spoke about his son’s death at the DNC convention. He did it to deliver a fierce rebuke to Donald Trump, who wants to take measures as president to protect Americans from Muslim terrorism.
Khizr Khan has worked long and hard to replace America the Land of Liberty and Tolerance with an America the Islamic Land of Submission and Intolerance.
Yet he claims that his son’s death in the Iraq war (in 2004) was a “sacrifice” that he, Khizr Kahn, made for the USA. He accused Donald Trump of not doing this noble thing. “You have sacrificed nothing and no one,” he said.
It’s not easy to make sense of that. In fact, it does not make sense.
Humayan Khan, the son, can certainly be said to have died in honorable military service to America. And logically, in all consistency, the father should be furious about it! One would expect to hear that Khizr Khan opposed his son’s joining the US army. We don’t know if he did. What we do know is that, in the light of Khizr’s career trying to change America into an Islamic country under sharia law, it is the height of hypocrisy and nothing short of astounding that he should claim his son’s death as his own “sacrifice” – for America the Land of Liberty and Tolerance. If he said he lost his son to that America, he would be making sense. Nasty sense, but sense.
His cynicism is matched and even surpassed by that of the Democratic Party – aka the Clinton Party – which has Khizr Khan appear on its platform at its convention to make that claim; to preen himself as someone whom America should hold in respect and honor because he made such a “sacrifice”; and to promote the claim as a “so there!” to Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump plans to exclude the likes of Khizr Khan, the promoters of sharia law, the would-be transformers of America the Land of Liberty and Tolerance into a sharia-ruled hell.
One of Khizr Kahn’s missions has been to bring as many Muslims into America as he can, towards achieving his objective of turning it into an Islamic country. As Trump threatens to make this impossible, of course Khan hates and dreads him. Khan will do anything to oppose him; even giving a lying and self-vaunting speech exploiting his own son’s honorable death at the DNC.
Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat discuss the issue, and give information about Khizr Khan’s life-long activity against America, in an article at their own website, from which we quote:
The Muslim who attacked Donald Trump … is a Muslim Brotherhood agent who wants to advance sharia law and bring Muslims into the United States. …
Khan wrote his Sharia Law supporting work in the eighties while he was in Saudi Arabia, the motherland of Wahhabism. This would never be possible unless Khan clearly had the support of the Saudi Wahhabist religious institution. …
He runs a law firm in New York City … According to the website, the law firm specializes in “immigration services”. …
Immigration services to Muslims, of course.
And – wouldn’t you have known it ! – there’s a Clinton connection going way back:
Khan used to work for Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, which has ties to the Clinton Foundation:
Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show.
Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign.
And there are more Saudi and Clinton ties:
Saudi interests with using Khan to advance Muslim immigration and advance Muslim Sharia is a lengthy subject which has ties to Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin as well. … The House of Saud … the Abedins (Huma Abedin and family) … played a central role in using Muslim immigration to infiltrate the west with Wahhabi agenda. The House of Saud had used Huma’s father Sayed Zaynul Abedin’s work regarding [the Journal of ] Muslim Minority Affairs … as part of 29 works to construct a plan to conquer the U.S. with Islam.
It is obvious that Khan is upset, that a Trump victory will eliminate and destroy decades of hard work to bring in Islamic immigration into the United States which was spearheaded by agents in Saudi Arabia like [himself] and Huma Abedin and [her] family (Sayed Z. Abedin).
They recall other Muslims who joined the US army – to “sacrifice” themselves not for America, but for its Islamic enemy:
In regards to his son and his sacrifice, on the other side of the coin, many were the “Muslim martyrs” who joined the US military. Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed, for example, enlisted in the Special Forces of the US Army; he was a double agent for Al-Qaeda. How about Hasan K. Akbar, a Muslim American soldier who murdered and injured fifteen soldiers. There was Bowe Bergdahl, an American Muslim soldier who deserted his men to join the Taliban, a desertion which led to six American being ambushed and killed while they were on the search looking for him. And of course the example of Nidal Malik Hassan, who murdered fourteen Americans in cold blood in Fort Hood.
What about infiltration into the U.S. military like Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, a major Muslim thinker for the Muslim Minority Affairs, an icon of the Abedin family … who, while he served in U.S. military, called on arming Muslims to fight the U.S? Al-Alwani is an IMMA (Institute of Muslims Minority Affairs) favorite … whom Hillary’s aide Huma Abedin credits as the source for their doctrine (it can’t get any better than this). … [He] is an ardent anti-Semite who by the way, runs the United States Department of Defense program for training Muslim military chaplains in the U.S. military.
The Abedins’ Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs confirms that their program stems from these same extremist sources including the notorious Taha Jaber Al-Alwani as well as the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi.
Right! We found that the journal states:
“Fiqh al-Aqalliyyat”—the jurisprudence of Muslim minorities—is a legal doctrine introduced in the 1990s by Taha Jabir Al-Alwani and Yusuf Al-Qaradawi which asserts that Muslim minorities, especially those residing in the West, deserve a special new legal discipline to address their unique religious needs …
The “legal discipline” of sharia, he means of course. Yet Khan brandished a copy of the US Constitution at the DNC.
The Shoebat article sums up:
In a nutshell, the Muslim Minority Affairs program is part of a grand plan to destroy America from within, exactly as the Muslim Brotherhood planned, which was exposed in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
And the moral of the story is: Anyone whom the Clintons set before you as worthy of your sympathy and respect is bound to be a scoundrel, and probably an enemy of the USA.
This is from Western Journalism, by Gerry Urbanek:
According to his website*, Khan — an immigration lawyer — helps clients gain E-2 and EB-5 visas, which provide green cards to foreign investors along with their families. Yet this particular visa program is highly controversial and has been accused of allowing foreigners to buy residency.
“The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a relatively modest investment,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center of Immigration Studies. “The EB-5 is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program in which a visa for a whole family can be bought for as little $500,000. … It’s an amazing deal.” …
In exchange for their $500,000 investment, immigrants who opt for this program receive green cards for themselves, their spouses and all of their children under the age of 21. …
Trump’s proposed policies on immigration are clearly a threat to this scofflaw trade.
*Khan’s website has been taken down.
We found the picture via Front Page, and we quote from the article about it by Theodore Shoebat:
According to a report, the victim was a Syrian helicopter pilot who was journeying to bring food to army bases and villages around the Marraat Noman city in the Idleb province, until he was shot down, murdered and beheaded and his head cooked on a grill. …
It is vital to keep in mind that the act of cooking the head of an enemy is rooted deeply in the Islamic religion. The most famous warrior in Sunni Islam’s history, Khalid ibn Walid, decapitated the head of a man named Malik ibn Nuwayrah, before raping his wife; he placed it under a cooking pot in which he cooked food and from which he then ate …
The Hadith for this recounts:
And he [Khalid] ordered they bring his [Malik’s] head and he placed it with two other rocks and he cooked on top of the three a pot, and Khalid ate from it that night in order to terrorize the renegade Arabs and others.
This story is further substantiated by the Arab scholar Ibn Khallikan, who writes the story thus:
[T]he head was put in the place of one of the three stones which supported the flesh-pot. Malik, as we have said, surpassed most men by the abundance of his hair, which was so thick, that the meat was cooked in the pot before the fire had reached the skull. …Khalid seized on the wife of Malik – or by another account he purchased her out of the booty — and married her.
We must now realize: we have not seen the full face of Islam yet; true Islam is more than just terrorism with bombs and guns; it is a cultic system which emphasizes human sacrifice and cannibalization of Allah’s enemies. …
Al Azhar University decreed that it was permissible to cannibalize enemies of Islam … human sacrifice was promoted by Safwat Hegazi … a Syrian rebel grilled a man’s head … [and] we have actual footage, recently released, of a Syrian jihadist eating the heart of his enemy. …
(To watch the disgusting video, see our post Eating their hearts out, May 13, 2013 – two days ago. There can, we think, be some doubt as to whether this is really a human head or perhaps a rubber mask on the grill; but there is no doubt that the rebel leader in the video is taking a bite of a man’s internal organ. Later he confirmed that he ate part of the victim’s lung – raw.)
Theodore Shoebat has an article at Front Page making an important point: that Islam and Environmentalism are both collectivist ideologies, both of them anti-humanist and both of them deplorable. With most of what he says I agree.
Where I disagree with him is in his conclusion: that it is therefore better to be Christian.
Christianity has been a collectivist, totalitarian movement, and (I suspect) would be again if it could. While it is less oppressive than other ideologies in our time, its doctrines are no more true. And its morality, if not inhumane, is inhuman; if not anti-humanist, anti-human. Who can love everyone else? Does everyone deserve to be loved? Is forgiveness just? Was it perhaps the setting of unrealistic ethical goals that made the churches, both Catholic and Protestant, so cruel in their powerful past?
I expressed my opinions and quite a few disagreed with me, some so strongly that they condemned me to Hell.
The argument can be found in the Comments on the Shoebat article here.
Perhaps some of our readers may feel moved to join in – preferably on our own Comments page, but if under the Shoebat article, please let us know and give us the link.
Jillian Becker January 20, 2013