| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
More on this story: how would you like your ex-fiancee to say this about you? "He wasn't the brightest crown in the box . . . not the handsomest guy in the world . . . thick mentally. My sister described him as a blowhard, somebody who like to talk a lot, and just listen to the sound of his own voice."
Anyway, she is making much here about the distinction between jihad and terrorism, and that is an excellent illustration of why this is "Jihad Watch" and not "Terrorism Watch." Zeba Khan says: "Just because he supports them (violent jihadists) in theory is not actually proof of his involvement as such." Indeed. But if they want to survive (which cannot be said to be completely clear at this point), Canada and other Western countries are sooner or later going to have to shift focus away from "terrorism" to the ideology that drives that terrorism, which is jihad and Islamic supremacism. And that ideology is not being spread today solely by bombs and terror attacks, but also by numerous other initiatives that have nothing to do with violence at all.
And at some point Western countries are going to have to ask whether those who support violent jihadists in theory are welcome here at all, any more than those who supported Nazis in theory would have been welcome in Canada or the United States in 1943.
There is much more in Zeba Khan's remarks below. I found piquant her adoption of the moronic lingo of teenage girls in conjunction with her support for jihadists and Islamic supremacists: "My sister was like, 'You know what? This guys seems like, really extreme, you know?" And her observation that I made the title here, "You will not meet a young Muslim man in the world who is not angry about something," is certainly quite true. This is a culture that today is thriving on rage, and whose leaders are encouraging rages in order to recruit foot soldiers to help them implement their agenda.
"Khawaja 'not the brightest,' but not a terrorist: Ex-fiancee," by Ian MacLeod for Canwest News Service, July 22 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
OTTAWA - The prosecution closed its case against Momin Khawaja Tuesday, its final witness testifying the young Muslim was angry over Iraq and Afghanistan but showed no sign he was a terrorist intent on bombing London."Just because he supports them (violent jihadists) in theory is not actually proof of his involvement as such . . . it's not the same as blowing up London," Zeba Khan, Khawaja's former finance, told the court via video link from Dubai.
"Jihad and terrorism are different things."
"You will not meet a young Muslim man in the world who is not angry about something. Anyone who watches the news, if he wasn't mad then: a) there's something wrong with him or: b) he's ignorant."...
During the first interview at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad that July, Khan referred to one of several e-mails from Khawaja expressing his plan to join the mujahedeen fight against western military in Afghanistan.
"I never thought that he would ever take it seriously, that he would do anything, see. This is all just talk. My sister was like, 'You know what? This guys seems like, really extreme, you know? He seems like he's very much supporting of like blowing things up and stuff.'
"And my response to her was, 'I bet he's not gonna do it. And I bet that if we got married and he tried to do it, I would stop him.'"
Her testimony Tuesday, most solicited during cross-examination by defence lawyer Lawrence Greenspon, expressed confidence in Khawaja's innocence in the London bomb plot. Not once, she said, in all their e-mails and two brief visits he made to her home, did he mention anything about the London plot or any other terrorist activity,
But her credibility with the court likely suffered when she said the nearly 3,000 people murdered on 9/11 were unintentional victims - "collateral damage" - of what was intended as an economic assault against the United States and an act she compared to the Allied bombing of Dresden, Germany during the Second World War. The Dresden bomber crews were not terrorists, she said. "Some things happen in war, innocent people get killed. In America you call it collateral damage, I don't see this as much different."
Now 27, married and living in Dubai, Khan was then a 23-year-old American living in Pakistan when she entered into an e-mail courtship with Khawaja in 2003. She later admitted to police it was more about trying to escape from her parents' home in Islamabad than love.
"He wasn't the brightest crown in the box . . . not the handsomest guy in the world . . . thick mentally. My sister described him as a blowhard, somebody who like to talk a lot, and just listen to the sound of his own voice."
Khawaja broke off the engagement a few months later.
For nearly an hour, the poised, intelligent and well-spoken woman in a light pink hijab insisted Khawaja had a strong moral compass, had shown no signs of wanting to harm innocent people and had never talked of a plot to bomb public sites around the British capital in 2004.
She said they shared a belief in jihad - struggle - that fell far short of terrorism.
"I do believe in jihad, but my belief in jihad is vastly different from what many believe it to be. To say that I believe in jihad does not mean I believe in terrorism, that I believe in blowing things up. When I say I support this, I do not support blowing up miscellaneous things in Britain and the U.S."
In her July 2004 statement to police, she said fighting U.S. troops in Muslim lands, "is not an act of terrorism."...
Posted by Robert at July 22, 2008 10:23 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Wow the wiggle room in her statments leaves a lot of room for killing non mulsims and blowing up specific targets.
Can they arrest her as well?
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 23, 2008 12:18 AM
"He wasn't the brightest crown in the box"
Do crowns come in boxes?
Or do kings wear crayons on their heads?
FB
Posted by: Fat Byzantine at July 23, 2008 12:21 AM
And does anybody in the court know that in Muslim eyes ALL Muslims are by definition, qua Muslim, innocent, and that ALL kafir, all non-Muslims, are by definition, qua non-Muslim, guilty, contemptible and unclean, subhumans, to be killed or reduced to dhimmi near-slaves, if they refuse to abandon their wicked ways and convert to Islam?
So that when she says Khawaja "had shown no signs of wanting to harm innocent people" it may not necessarily mean what the court THINKS she means.
Sure he didn't want to harm innocent people...i.e. MUSLIMS.
Here's the ex-Muslim, Nonie Darwish, in October 2007,
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=17069DA6-6C04-4E06-81C7-010C9F29AD55
talking about the idea that all Kafir are guilty while Muslims are guiltless:
"In the Judeo Christian culture they say: “we are all sinners” -- but in the Muslim culture 'they [non-Muslims] are all sinners; but we are Muslims'.
"Non-Muslim are 'Cafir', non-Muslims are not innocent; they are viewed as sinners who need Islam and Islamists have given themselves the role of Allah to force Islam on the world, against their will, through the principle of Jihad."
I wonder, too, whether anyone in the court knows that lying is permitted if it is 'in the best interests of Islam'; in this case, to get a fellow Muslim out of trouble with the kafir, in an instance where - for the moment, at least - the Evil Kafir have the upper hand? So it might be safely assumed that Zeba Khan is lying through her teeth.
From the same speech by Nonie Darwish, at Berkely University in 2007:
"On Arab TV, I once saw a Muslim preacher telling little children that lying is not allowed except under three conditions
1- Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam. 2- Lying to Muslims if it will end conflict between them. And 3rd: Lying to one’s wife to improve the relationship.
'Lying thus has become an obligation in international relationships, Muslim relationships and family relationships.
'Any wonder why Muslims were silent after 9/11?
'Those who expose the lying game are considered traitors.
'By allowing lying, Muslims have created a culture unable to distinguish between lies from truth; truth has become a convoluted game of saving face for the best interest of Islam."
Here are Hugh Fitzgerald's valuable reflections on Darwish's account of the 'three conditions':
"This is standard Islamic doctrine: the three cases when lying is justified.
The one that is of concern to Infidels is, of course, #1.
"War is deception," said Muhammad.
'And Muhammad is described in the Qur'an as "uswa hasana" -- the Model of Conduct. He is al-insan al-kamil -- the Perfect Man.
'And he is the one who says that war must be conducted against Infidels, as long as they continue to preserve any obstacle -- and the American Constitution is certainly an obstacle, as is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights --to the spread, and dominance, of Islam."
- Posted by: ‘Hugh Fitzgerald’ on jihadwatch.org at April 10, 2008 12:31 PM
If I were in that jury, knowing what I have come to know about al-taqiyya, I would not believe one single word that this woman, or her ex-boyfriend, have said.
And I might, perhaps, be studying Paul Ekman's interesting work on human expression, and on deception: for example:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/detecting.html
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 23, 2008 12:28 AM
"But her credibility with the court likely suffered when she said the nearly 3,000 people murdered on 9/11 were unintentional victims - "collateral damage" - of what was intended as an economic assault against the United States and an act she compared to the Allied bombing of Dresden, Germany during the Second World War. The Dresden bomber crews were not terrorists, she said. "Some things happen in war, innocent people get killed. In America you call it collateral damage, I don't see this as much different."
Now 27, married and living in Dubai, Khan was then a 23-year-old American living in Pakistan..."
NO. She was not and is not an American. And she admits it, if not intentionally, when she uses "you", instead of "we", in the collateral damage sentence above. She is a muslim female living in Dubai who may hold a US passport. That is all.
at July 23, 2008 12:29 AM
Well, this is what we're up against. The more non-Muslims who grasp this, the more likely it is the West will prevail. After all, knowledge is power. Ah, Islam is so sick. So very sick.
Posted by: Wellington at July 23, 2008 12:34 AM
Well, this is what we're up against. The more non-Muslims who grasp this, the more likely it is the West will prevail.
posted by Wellington
Spread the word. I just turned a coworker on to JW this week. He seemed interested to have some things explained. He said he wanted to look at the website. I told him, once you get it - tell two of your friends. And ask them to tell two of their friends. I think I reached this guy. Spread the word.
I work around a number of people from Islamic nations, many from Iran. Also Egypt and other countries. Some of these folks, engineers mostly, are a little off if not nuts; but some are great folk. I can only hope their faith is nominal, since you can never know what's in their hearts and minds. I was in line behind a Persian guy I know at the lunch truck at work this week. He's a great guy to work with, I like and admire this guy. However, I just wonder about our potentially Islamic neighbors now. More than ever. He ordered a Super Breakfast Burrito. Bacon, ham, and link suasage go in the breakfast burrito. I wonder if he likes beer and dogs too. I can't possibly ask, but I wonder what's on his mind about all this shit.
Posted by: Richard at July 23, 2008 1:08 AM
"He wasn't the brightest crown in the box"
Hey, who has a box full of crowns? I don't even have ONE crown!
Posted by: Goob at July 23, 2008 4:37 AM
"You will not meet a young Muslim man in the world who is not angry about something."
I can think of no more damning statement about a "religion" than the above. Contrast that with Jesus's near-to parting words:
“I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another.” [John 13:34-35]
“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; I do not give it to you as the world does. Do not let your hearts be distressed or lacking in courage. You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe. I will not speak with you much longer, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me, but I am doing just what the Father commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Get up, let us go from here.” [John 14:27-31]
One who is shopping for a wholesome creed would surely prefer the Christian dispensation, which undoubtedly has a lot to do with the Islamic punishment of apostasy.
at July 23, 2008 4:51 AM
For nearly an hour, the poised, intelligent and well-spoken woman in a light pink hijab insisted Khawaja had a strong moral compass, had shown no signs of wanting to harm innocent people
ah buts lests not forget to these 7th century barbarians that only think muslims are innocent nice use of kitman by her
at July 23, 2008 5:10 AM
had shown no signs of wanting to harm innocent people"
the question prosecuters should be asking who are the innocent?
at July 23, 2008 6:30 AM
"Allah is happy when kafirs are collateral damage."
(Abu Hamza Al-Masri, UK Moslem Cleric)
at July 23, 2008 8:10 AM
"You will not meet a young Muslim man in the world who is not angry about something"
Religions that I am familiar with are uplifting and provide a positive goal, except one. Guess which one. Maybe that is why, on any Friday, somewhere in the world you will see a group of "religious" people leave their mosque after services yelling kill, kill, kill.
Posted by: Spot on at July 23, 2008 8:34 AM
As dumbledores army put it so correctly, the only innocent are those not spreading mischief in the world, in other words devout Muslims...
Posted by: Daffersd at July 23, 2008 8:43 AM
Unfortunately, this supports the strong belief that every Muslim in America or any Western nation (including their offspring’s) is a sleeper cell whether they know it or not.
Sooner or later, they will join Jihadis or terrorism and help destroy the country they are born and raised in (US or any Western nation) because their loyalty is not directed to the foreign nations they are born and living in (even if they were sworn citizens), their ultimate loyalty is to Islam and the Islamic nations and against the county they are living in.
Muslims frequently refer to US and the western nations as foreign countries even when they are born and raised in these "foreign countries".
To Muslims, US, Canada, Australia and European countries are always and they will always be "foreign countries" and the Muslins countries are always referred to as "homelands" even when they have never stepped a foot in them.
This in one reason why a Muslim should never be elected to a public office because instead of serving his community he will be serving Islam and the conflict of interest creeps up too frequently as they weigh in most of their decisions to see how they can better serve Islam in general.
at July 23, 2008 9:48 AM
Can someone explain to me how "economic assault" became the reasoning for the 9/11 bombing of the Pentagon, and the attempted destruction of the White House?
Economic assault, my ass.
at July 23, 2008 10:17 AM
You will not meet a young Muslim man in the world who is not angry about something.
Oh, horseshit. My son-in-law is a Turkish Muslim, and he's more laid back than almost anyone I know. More laid back than you are. Much more so than I am.
Indeed, I'm angry about a few things, and I'm not even Muslim. Like your bone-headed prejudicial generalization.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 23, 2008 11:40 AM
Whoops. My bad. Apologies, Robert. My comments would be better directed to the person who actually made the comment. And maybe be of more use, I dunno.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 23, 2008 11:52 AM
Typical Muslim taqiya at play again. Trying to get a Muslim to testify against another Muslim is an exercise in futility. As I have read on the on-line Canadian media reports, the so-called PAID informant in the Toronto 19 trial turned into a hostile witness for the prosecution. This woman has done the same. Jihad is violence, period. No amount of taqiya will convince me otherwise.
Posted by: IndianTiger at July 23, 2008 1:23 PM
""Jihad and terrorism are different things."
not anymore
Posted by: pulsar182 at July 23, 2008 7:36 PM
Any bets as to whether her present husband is a Jihadi?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 23, 2008 10:26 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)