Muslim Extremist's Web Site Stirs Mixed Emotions in Charlotte, NC

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:56 am

Muslim Extremist's Web Site Stirs Mixed Emotions in Charlotte, N.C.

Friday , June 06, 2008

By Cristina Corbin

CHARLOTTE, N.C. —

In a quiet, upscale neighborhood in Charlotte, N.C., rows of custom-style homes and neatly landscaped lawns represent the American dream. But one local resident has shattered that image, calling for the death of American troops in Iraq and supporting Al Qaeda through his Web site, which he reportedly runs from his parents' home.

Samir Khan is the man behind Revolution.Muslimpad.com — a radical Islamic site that praises Usama bin Laden and asks for Allah to “curse more American soldiers.

The site posts videos of U.S. Humvees being blown up by roadside bombs in Iraq. It aims to inspire young Muslims to wage war against the West.

Terrorism experts say the Web site, written in English, is one of the premiere sites for Western audiences to get access to radical Islamist propaganda.

Khan, 22, declined requests for an interview, even when approached outside his home with cameras rolling. When asked if the messages on his site represent Islam, Khan would say only that “they represent Muslims.

• Click here to view the full video report on Samir Khan.

In an e-mail sent to FOX News, Khan lashed out at the "arrogance" of the media, saying it should focus instead on converting to Islam. "When you go down in to the earth six feet deep, nothing will matter except what Religion you died upon," he wrote.

Following a FOXNews.com report last month profiling his Web site, Khan railed against "the Kuffaar" — non-believers — who wrote the article and affirmed his belief that jihad is "an Islaamic obligation" rooted in Muslim texts.

Words like those stir mixed emotions in Charlotte, among the general public and among the 8,000 Muslims who live there.

Imam Khalil Akbar, a religious leader in Charlotte, condemned Khan’s site, saying its views do not reflect “mainstream Islamic thinking and do not represent the Muslim community at large.

“I would reject categorically those kinds of encouragements to look up to people like bin Laden, Akbar said.

Neighbors described Khan — who immigrated to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia when he was 7 years old — as “friendly and “reserved. They said he launched his Web site while taking classes at Central Piedmont Community College and selling Cutco knives.

Abdullah Mahmud, an acquaintance of Khan’s who attends the same mosque, the Islamic Center of Greater Charlotte, defended Khan's viewpoints, saying his anger stems from the United States' foreign policy and occupation of Iraq.

Mahmoud said the blood-drenched videos Khan shows of U.S. soldiers injured in combat “serve the purpose of making the reality of the Iraqi scene visible to people.

“Those videos are not much different than videos involving American soldiers targeting Iraqi civilians, he said. “You have to look at both sides here.

One of Khan’s neighbors, Ron Williams, also defended Khan’s right to free speech.

“Our actions (in Iraq) were interpreted broadly in the Muslim world as an attack on Islam, Williams said, “I defend his right to speak out.

But Jarret Brachman, director of research at West Point's Center for Combatting Terrorism, said Khan’s call for violence takes his anti-American views one step further.

“To be unhappy with U.S. foreign policy is one thing, but to advocate violence by promoting Al Qaeda is another, he said.

“This is the most sophisticated and aggressive Web site in English that really puts out bin Laden’s ideology and the message that’s promoted by Al Qaeda, he added.

Brachman said Khan's site "raises the threshold for what it means to be a good, pro-Al Qaeda Web site" and is "the best in English."

A graphic prominently displayed on the site shows a picture of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a prominent Al Qaeda spokesman whom Brachman calls “Bin Laden 2.0.

“He’s the guy poised to take over the movement after bin Laden fades away, Brachman said. “The fact that Khan would display him like he does means he’s trying not only to show he’s an insider, but also to model himself after him.

The exact dangers his site poses are difficult to assess, experts said.

“It doesn’t necessarily move someone to action immediately, but it primes the pump, Brachman said. “It gets somebody motivated to think more about Al Qaeda and so over the long term this is a very threatening message that he’s promoting.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:07 am

Those silly Islamists, they're so unorganized. They should take a leaf from Fred Phelp's book, he knows how to do things on a proper scale.

I'd maintain, if invited to, that the problem is monotheism. Wherever you get monotheism it tends toward the position adopted by Samir Khan and Fred Phelps. Sensible religions aren't top-down authoritarian and don't have an I'm-better-than-you God.

Fred Phelps, for those who don't know the name, runs GodHatesAmerica.com and means every word of it. He's not been Islamicized, he's been touched by Jesus. We could no doubt have had a thread called "Christian Extremist's Web Site Stirs Mixed Emotions in Topeka, Ka" if Fox News weren't so keen on its let's-hate-Muslims agenda.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:22 am

If I had seen a "Christian Extremist Upsets Topeka Kansas" article, I would have printed it too if it spouted the same hateful rhetoric.

What I find upsetting is that I uphold anyone's right to say anything they want...as repugnant as it may be...and then when I see stuff like this, my own policy is awfully hard to swallow.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:24 am

What we can do perhaps, if the site manages to survive the anti-free-speech invective of Fox News, is take quotes from it and discuss them here. Perhaps if we try we can find things on it that we agree with?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:32 am

We can sure try. I'm willing.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:33 am

This is from the front page, then:Some ask us why we don’t condemn the Mujaahideen.

We say to them:

We will never condemn them in order to please your hearts. We speak what is good and leave that which is evil. The honor belongs to Allah, His Messenger, and the Believers and not the disbelievers.

If what the Mujaahideen are doing is something not permissible under Islaamic Law, then we will stay quiet and pray to Allah for guidance (for them). Never will we condemn them to make you happy because they are still better than the disbelievers due to their belief in Allah and His Messenger.It's rather like the US position of refusing to speak ill of the behaviour of the US troops in the Middle East. We've had grotesque murders over the years which have rarely come before a US court. Those which have got to court have rarely resulted in convictions. Those which result in convictions result in sentences, like those handed down during Vietnam for atrocity killings, which have no bearing on the gravity of the offence, which end up served under house arrest and early releases. The US refuses to condemn them because it would encourage those who disagree with their deployment. The US press speaks what good it can muster up about them and refuses to print criticism of "our boys in harm's way".

Perhaps you disagree? Perhaps you think those two positions aren't comparable?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:41 am

Uh huh. :yh_eyebro

Well, both of these sites likely skirt very close to the edge of treason without crossing the line, but even if they offered a price for Bush's death our weak law enforcement people would do nothing.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:43 am

Well, generally speaking, I think it's best to tout the good and play down the bad while you try to make the bad better. However when I say that, I am thinking more of cultural aspects and not crimes.

In the instance you have given, I don't personally condone covering up outright criminal activity. I am not so sure everything slips past the media though. It seems to me when the war first started we had a report of servicemen raping a girl and people were rightfully up in arms about it. And don't forget the incident where we stripped and hogtied detainees and then posed for pictures with them.

Those are just two incidents that come to my mind and they deserved far more outrage than what I felt they received. I may be getting off track here. My point is that when it comes to egregious behavior like that it needs to be punished and not swept under the American rug. Your turn.....

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:47 am

Accountable;884149 wrote: Well, both of these sites likely skirt very close to the edge of treason without crossing the line, but even if they offered a price for Bush's death our weak law enforcement people would do nothing.

Just so I understand the full flavour of that - it's legal for Bush to offer a bounty for killing a non-American foreign national living abroad who's not been tried before any court for any crime, but it's illegal for anyone, American or non-American, to offer a bounty for killing the US President who's personally responsible for the recognized crime of waging aggressive war (an aspect of war crime in which he can claim no personal immunity by reason of his office)? Could you explain the reason that the law's so biased in the area of offering bounty for a killing?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 5:05 am

spot;884151 wrote: Just so I understand the full flavour of that - it's legal for Bush to offer a bounty for killing a non-American foreign national living abroad who's not been tried before any court for any crime, but it's illegal for anyone, American or non-American, to offer a bounty for killing the US President who's personally responsible for the recognized crime of waging aggressive war (an aspect of war crime in which he can claim no personal immunity by reason of his office)?Yes.spot wrote: Could you explain the reason that the law's so biased in the area of offering bounty for a killing?Yes.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 5:25 am

Accountable;884157 wrote: Yes.Ah. Modal auxilliaries.e. Use of the auxiliary Could in expressing wishes: It should be noted that the modal auxiliary could, which will be discussed further in the next chapter, can also be used in the subordinate clause of a sentence expressing a wish.

http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/durrus ... 09.html#4e

Should you explain the reason that the law's so biased in the area of offering bounty for a killing I'd be grateful.

I have to fly, I've a barbie to attend. Back later.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 5:49 am

spot;884166 wrote: Ah. Modal auxilliaries.

e. Use of the auxiliary Could in expressing wishes: It should be noted that the modal auxiliary could, which will be discussed further in the next chapter, can also be used in the subordinate clause of a sentence expressing a wish.

http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/durrus ... 09.html#4e

Should you explain the reason that the law's so biased in the area of offering bounty for a killing I'd be grateful.

I have to fly, I've a barbie to attend. Back later.
Oops, I mis-wrote.

"Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense." 1

We have laws against inciting attacks against our gov't. To my knowledge, we don't have laws against a President's yelling "Bring me his head on a platter," though I could easily be wrong.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:31 pm

How does one bring a charge of treason against a non-American foreign national living abroad? Where does the "to which one owes allegiance" bit come into the matter of bounties dead or alive?

You certainly did have laws making it illegal for a President to yell "bring me his head on a platter" though the current chap might have repealed them - I've not noticed that he has, if he has.

I think the time will come when no member of your current Administration will be able to travel to Europe without a writ being issued against him or her for Crimes Against Humanity, as happened to President Pinochet and as would happen to Henry Kissinger if he were foolish enough to come here. What saddens me is that you have no local process of legal investigation which would uncover their crimes and bring them to justice.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:14 pm

spot;884489 wrote: How does one bring a charge of treason against a non-American foreign national living abroad? Where does the "to which one owes allegiance" bit come into the matter of bounties dead or alive?I was referring to the boy in the OP.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:51 pm

Well after reading the blog rules, it would appear that to the extent this blog represents anything close to the Islamic perspective, we can pretty much discount tollerance or open discussion, unless it supports their view of the world, religion and life.

Isn't it amazing that the preaching of violence and intollerance can only be tollerated in the country that is the main target of such thinking in the first place. I wonder what would happen if such a blog were set up in Saudi Arabia and preached anti government philosophy. :-5

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:51 pm

I'm not sure why the authors of websites such as this cannot be charged with various offences related to the dissemination of materials inspiring race- or religious hatred. In Britain that is certainly the case, though keeping track of websites is of course notoriously difficult. Also incitement to violence either against fellow citizens or against the state is also illegal and can and should be dealt with accordingly. I am not sure how it works in America, and there is always an aversion to stifling free speech (and for speech to be really free, people have to allowed to say things that perhaps others may not want to hear), but that freedom is no more absolute than any other personal liberty, and this example clearly crosses the line of what is tolerable and reasonable.

I think one of the major problems is the special status granted to religion in our societies for some reason, whereby people can get away with saying the most disgusting and bigoted things, by simply claiming that its based on "their faith" and somehow thats fine, because they have a special license from god. That goes as much for Christian fundamentalists as it does for Islamic ones, as spot pointed out.

In fact the point that the US and Western European countries are christian puts even more onus on making sure that the dialogue within christianity does not succumb to the temptation of becoming as warped and conflictual as that which currently seems to be gripping Islam, both in relation to internal muslim relations between sects and nations, and also externally to non muslims. Though more sensible conservative voices within Islam finally seem to realize that extreme voices are trying to hijack the belief system to meet a political purpose across the muslim world.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:36 pm

Wow this site ( Revolution.Muslimpad.com ) links to this site

This is what they say about it:

There is a hardcore Christian group residing in America that says things like, “Thank God for IEDs, and “God Hates Fags and “Your Pastor is a Whore and “God Hates America and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers and so on. Here is a short video made by this Christian Group regarding “Thank God for IEDs -

http://www.signmovies.net/videos/signmovies/tgfi.html

This is their website.

The funniest thing besides the obvious is that if Muslims were to say such things¦ can you imagine the reaction of the Kuffaar? Can you imagine how nuts the Kuffaar would go?

Alhamdullilah, we have the Haqq¦ so these Christians can keep babbling about how they love IEDs, but when we say it, it actually means something. When we say it or do anything, the Government makes laws to make sure that nobody can say it again.

Of course, the Muslims are too cowardly to say such things; the closest we have ever gotten (in America) was some of the things that our brothers from the Islamic Thinkers Society say and have done. For instance, they have tore up the American flag, they insult fagots, they pray for Israel’s destruction and more. Alhamdullilah, we should be proud that we have tough Muslims in America that don’t fear the finger pointing. The Muslims in America should be supportive of such groups because these brothers speak the Haqq loud and clear.

If the Kuffaar ever try to get you arrested for the things you say such as “Allah loves IEDs, then you can always refer back to these extreme Christian group and point out that they say things which are even more hardcore; so why is it that they have the right to say this and Muslims don’t?

Man-made laws, as usual, has way too many loopholes.

So we say to the Kuffaar, “Allah hates America, and “Thank Allah for IEDs and “Allah hates America, and “Thank Allah for Dead Soldiers, and “Don’t pray for the USA, and “Say no to Uncle Sodom, and “America is a Satanic Nation.

Of course we don’t support this Christian group simply because they are Kuffaar; but it’s our right to express our anger just as it is their right.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:50 pm

rjwould;897598 wrote: LoL!!

You are one funny dude, and I think you could be even funnier if you made any sense.

What is it you don't understand?

I'll type slower next tyme, if that is your problem?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:00 pm

rjwould;897645 wrote: Good one.

I am curious about something I notice about you relevant to sufficiency. The question is; "What is a fact?"

I hope I did not type too fast for you this tyme again.

And speaking of relevant to sufficiency..

How is this relevant to this thread?

Are you saying what I posted was not fact from the Revolution.Muslimpad.com web site?

Fact is:

I don't think you would know one if it hit you between your ears.