Wacko Trump supporter lies about Khan

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
Contributor
"Hillary Is Busted: Read The Real Booklet Hillary’s Man Was Carrying For Years. It Was The Muslim Shari’ah Constitution And NOT The U.S Constitution"


sl-copy.jpg



http://shoebat.com/2016/08/02/hilla...ah-constitution-and-not-the-u-s-constitution/


Trump for Institutionalization 2016
 
christiefan915 said:
Yeah, I read it. Hope you're not claiming his title and picture are on the up and up re: the rest of the article.

Trump for Institutionalization 2016
Click to expand...

I don't know about the book he was holding and I'm not sure the writer was claiming Khan held a literal copy of the Sharia.

But if Khan wrote this:

: “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”[from link]

He is a card carrying Islamist.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I don't know about the book he was holding and I'm not sure the writer was claiming Khan held a literal copy of the Sharia.

But if Khan wrote this:

: “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”[from link]

He is a card carrying Islamist.
Click to expand...


I'd need to see it in context.

If I read this comment "The obedient must be slaves” by Henry David Thoreau, it has a different meaning from the entire quote "“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
 
christiefan915 said:
I'd need to see it in context.

If I read this comment "The obedient must be slaves” by Henry David Thoreau, it has a different meaning from the entire quote "“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
Click to expand...

What additional context is needed? Khan clearly asserts that all other legal documents [like the constitution he was holding, ironically, at the convention] are subordinate to Sharia.

See, I don't think all Muslims subscribe to that. At least not here in the US. There are other patriotic Muslims but they picked an Islamist[!] to go after Trump on Muslim immigration. That amazes me lol.

Didn't the DNC vett this guy? Because this is a pretty nasty backfire for the democrats---assuming the media doesn't run away from it.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
What additional context is needed? Khan clearly asserts that all other legal documents [like the constitution he was holding, ironically, at the convention] are subordinate to Sharia.

See, I don't think all Muslims subscribe to that. At least not here in the US. There are other patriotic Muslims but they picked an Islamist[!] to go after Trump on Muslim immigration. That amazes me lol.

Didn't the DNC vett this guy? Because this is a pretty nasty backfire for the democrats---assuming the media doesn't run away from it.
Click to expand...

Of course context matters. Was Khan approving, disapproving, explaining, complaining, teaching, correcting? I looked at Shoebat's site and he's basing his entire argument on a dozen disconnected sentences. It's pretty clear this is just fear-mongering.
 
The Shoebats went on to cite two papers written by Khan in 1983 and 1984 pertaining to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, described as "an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries" and a second titled "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law" (both of which were written prior to the family's move to the United States).

With respect to the latter, Shoebat bracketed a not-present "Sharia" in the title and included a snapshot of the only page of the paper freely available (which in no part suggested support for Sharia law or membership in the Muslim brotherhood and appeared to be an academic piece, not an advocacy paper). The Shoebats maintained that in the paper "Khan shows his appreciation for the icon of the Muslim Brotherhood," referencing a citation holding that "The contribution to this article of S. Ramadan’s writing is greatly acknowledged."

However, the quoted text was suspiciously elided from the screenshot that appeared on Shoebat and looked far less damning in its actual context as an academic footnote:



​
The elided citation was offered as support of the assertion that Khan's work was undersigned by the "Saudi Wahhabist religious institution" and cited a "recent report" that Khan had moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, "a hotbed for the Muslim Brotherhood."

http://www.snopes.com/khizr-khan-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-agent/


Trump for Institutionalization 2016



​
 
christiefan915 said:
Of course context matters. Was Khan approving, disapproving, explaining, complaining, teaching, correcting? I looked at Shoebat's site and he's basing his entire argument on a dozen disconnected sentences. It's pretty clear this is just fear-mongering.
Click to expand...

: “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.” [Khan]

It's pretty clear Khan is an Islamist because he was *declaring* that all other corpus' of law are subordinate to Sharia. He said that though 'they are rich and indispensable' nonetheless, they are subordinate to Islamic law. Nowhere, does Khan go on to say that [in contradiction to what he just declared] Sharia is only intended for the faithful.
 
christiefan915 said:
The Shoebats went on to cite two papers written by Khan in 1983 and 1984 pertaining to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, described as "an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries" and a second titled "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law" (both of which were written prior to the family's move to the United States).

With respect to the latter, Shoebat bracketed a not-present "Sharia" in the title and included a snapshot of the only page of the paper freely available (which in no part suggested support for Sharia law or membership in the Muslim brotherhood and appeared to be an academic piece, not an advocacy paper). The Shoebats maintained that in the paper "Khan shows his appreciation for the icon of the Muslim Brotherhood," referencing a citation holding that "The contribution to this article of S. Ramadan’s writing is greatly acknowledged."

However, the quoted text was suspiciously elided from the screenshot that appeared on Shoebat and looked far less damning in its actual context as an academic footnote:



​
The elided citation was offered as support of the assertion that Khan's work was undersigned by the "Saudi Wahhabist religious institution" and cited a "recent report" that Khan had moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, "a hotbed for the Muslim Brotherhood."

http://www.snopes.com/khizr-khan-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-agent/


Trump for Institutionalization 2016



​
Click to expand...

So, Snopes *speculates* that Khan was writing an academic paper as opposed to an advocacy piece. In spite of the fact it appears to be both.

As evidence[?], they cite an arcane discussion by Khan on Islamic law.

One bit of evidence against their claim is that Khan wrote this while in Saudi Arabia---where they take their Islamic law kind of seriously. In fact, it's doubtful a Saudi Muslim jurist could treat the study of Sharia as a mere academic exercise.

Nice try, Snopes.
 
Looks like Raptor was right.

Khan is a Muslim Brotherhood operative who profits from selling visas to Islamists and endorses Sharia Law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top