On October 22, CBS’s Sixty Minutes devoted one of its segments to the stirring tale of Tamer El-Noury.
That is the alias of an Egyptian-American undercover agent, working for the FBI, who has for years been befriending terrorists linked to Al Qaeda, both in the United States and abroad. Heavily made up, with his voice disguised, El-Noury told a television audience of millions about some of the techniques he used for “accidentally bumping into” those suspects he needed to meet and befriend so that ultimately they would come to trust him enough to reveal to him, or even include him as a participant, in their terrorist plans. El-Noury described how he was endowed by the FBI with a “legend,” that is, a fictitious life-history, complete with supporting data and documents, that made him out to be a well-off Arab-American property investor. He reviewed this story endlessly, for it included details of how he got his start, of what investments he had made, of his family life, of how he conducted his (fictional) business. He had to become knowledgeable enough to be able to answer any questions that his new Al Qaeda friends might ask, about his family, life, or work. The FBI set up an “office” for him too, complete with files and a receptionist, in case any of his terrorist associates wanted to check up on his business and came a-calling.
El-Noury memorized his fictional life history, as supplied by the FBI, rehearsed answers to every possible question he might be asked, including what had supposedly caused him to want to harm Americans. That tale involved a made-up story about his mother, who died, El-Noury was told to claim, because — or so he was told to say he believed — she received sub-standard care from American doctors because she was a Muslim. Hence his professed desire to inflict damage on Americans. After the FBI managed to arrange his “chance encounter” on a plane with a Tunisian immigrant from Canada, an Al-Qaeda member named Chiheb Esseghaier, El-Noury befriended the Tunisian and, over many months, won his trust to such an extent that Esseghaier told him of his plans, at the direction of Al-Qaeda operatives abroad, first to attack and derail a New York-to-Toronto passenger train as it crossed a bridge, and after that, to conduct a much more complicated attack, involving a series of bombs going off at set intervals in Times Square on New Year’s Eve. El-Noury’s undercover work led to the arrest and conviction of both Esseghaier and an associate, Raed Jaser, who are now serving life sentences.
There is no doubt that El-Noury engaged in difficult and dangerous work for the FBI. He is still working for the FBI. So it may seem churlish to take issue with what he repeatedly insists about Islam, but being a hero does not mean that your understanding of the faith is not to be challenged.
For El-Noury considers himself a good Muslim. And he hates these Al-Qaeda jihadists because they “desecrate” his religion:
“The fact is that these jihadists – these radicals that are popping up – are lost souls. They latch on to hatred, and an evil that seems to give them purpose.”
“I am a Muslim and I am an American, and I am appalled at what these animals are doing to my country while desecrating my religion.”
One must ask how, in what way, are “these jihadists” to be considered “lost souls”? Are they behaving in a way that is contrary to the commands of the Qur’an to wage violent Jihad? Does El-Noury not know those 109 jihad verses that these “lost souls” rely on? Do Muslims “latch on to hatred” that is not to be found in the Islamic texts, in order to give their lives “purpose,” or is that hatred for the Infidels to be found all over the Qur’an and hadith, impossible to avoid?
Still more disturbing is El-Noury’s insistence that “these animals” are “desecrating my religion.” How are they desecrating it? Isn’t instilling terror in the hearts of the Unbelievers exactly what Muslims are instructed to do, as in Qur’an 3:151, 8:12, 8:60?
What about the behavior of Muhammad, that “Perfect Man,” who is held up for Muslims as an exemplar, and who said in a famous hadith that “I have been made victorious through terror”? (Al-Bukhari, 4.52.220)
When El-Noury insisted that these terrorist plotters were “desecrating” his religion, he was stating what is for him psychologically necessary. One suspects that for his own mental stability, he has had to convince himself that Islam does not in any way justify terrorism, that the only Muslims he (and we) need worry about are those who are not good Muslims but “lost souls,” people who are not honoring but “desecrating” the inoffensive faith of Islam. He is hardly the only Muslim who chooses to overlook, who doesn’t want to know about, the actual contents of the Qur’an and Hadith. But because he is also someone who has helped in the capture and conviction of would-be terrorists, he has a claim on our sympathies that might lead us, wrongly, not to question his view of Islam.
No doubt his FBI handlers were happy to accept his view of the “true” Islam as benign, for they have no desire to contradict him, given all that he has done and may still be doing, as an undercover agent. Far better to let him believe, if he must, that the true Islam is peaceful, tolerant, inoffensive. And it would have been unseemly, no doubt, for the Sixty Minutes interviewer to take issue with Tamer El- Noury in a segment clearly designed to celebrate him, to contradict him by suggesting that Islam is not being “desecrated” by the terrorists, but that those terrorists are simply taking to heart the many Qur’anic verses commanding violence, and acting on them. Such a line of questioning would only anger Mr. El-Noury, and given how he has risked his life as an undercover agent, the audience is likely to take his side if he is challenged, as he yet again repeats that the terrorists are “lost souls” who “desecrate” Islam.
But his heroism does not mean we need to accept El-Noury’s benign view of Islam. Hero he certainly is, but that has not made him a reliable guide when it comes to what Islam inculcates. There are other venues than Sixty Minutes where he might and should be questioned — including right here, right now, at Jihad Watch.
What does El-Noury make of the following examples — there are so many — of Qur’anic verses about killing the Unbelievers:
“Fight against those who do not obey Allah and do not believe in Allah or the Last Day and do not forbid what has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger even if they are of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29
“When the sacred months have passed, then kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them. Capture them. Besiege them. Lie in wait for them in each and every ambush but if they repent, and perform the prayers, and give zakat, then leave their way free.” 9:5
“Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from where they drove you out. Persecution is worse than slaughter.” 2:191
“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.” 47:4
Or those that command acts of terror:
“We will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.” 3:151
“Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.” 8:60
Should Mr. El-Noury, as someone who has risked his life to help catch Muslim terrorists at the planning stage, be exempt from cross-questioning about his understanding of Islam? Some might think so. Many will want to believe that he is right about Islam, because the notion that the terrorists are only following the Qur’an and Hadith is simply too disturbing. We hear him say again and again “I am a Muslim and I am an American, and I am appalled at what these animals are doing to my country while desecrating my religion,” and it’s tempting to believe him.
But a different, and a better view, is that when El-Noury misleads himself, and us, about Islam, we should not let his impressive work as an undercover agent cause us to silently accept his view of Islam. Our duty is to correct his misrepresentation of the faith. Islam is not a hieratic mystery which non-Muslims cannot possibly comprehend. We can read the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira. We can study the Jihad verses, including the verses that call not just for warfare, but for terrorism against the Unbelievers. We can learn about the life of Muhammad and how he treated Unbelievers. We can read the Qur’anic commentators, from the first century of Islam to the present day.
On Sixty Minutes, El-Noury might have said something other than to express his fury at those he apparently believes are misinterpreting, twisting, distorting, desecrating Islam. He might have said that “Muslim terrorists attacked America that day, on 9/11, and as a Muslim and American I felt a special duty to help prevent any more such attacks.” And he might have stopped there, instead of describing those Al Qaeda terrorists as “desecrating” Islam. Or he might have said, truthfully, that “these terrorists don’t know how else to understand the Qur’an except literally — they not only take the Qur’anic commandments to heart but attempt to act on them,” and thus they “set themselves against those they call Unbelievers, that is the rest of humanity.” He could have said that “I do what I can, about the most dangerous ones, but I can only hope that another understanding of Islam, one that will permit real coexistence between Muslims and all others, will come into being. It means, to begin with, for Muslims not to deny but to recognize what the ideology of Islam now inculcates. It requires us to fight for another interpretation. It won’t be easy to achieve. But we must try.”
And then, even better, Tamer El-Noury could have quoted a handful of verses, say 9:5, 9:29, 2:191, 3:151, 8:60, 47:4, the very ones that Defenders of the Faith most try to hide from Infidels, and said “see, that’s what we are facing, that’s what we must deal with.”
Could he bring himself to say that? If he could, that would be another heroic service rendered by El-Noury. And if he can’t? If he clings to the belief that terrorists “desecrate” the good, peaceful, tolerant faith with which he says he he grew up, and that he has convinced himself is the “real” Islam? Then be grateful for what he has done and continues to do, as an undercover agent, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that his heroism entitles him to a pass on the subject of Islam. Clearly, for now, he can’t allow himself to abandon his filiopietistic misunderstanding of the faith. But we who are not Muslims can’t afford to let palpable untruths about Islam go unchallenged. Not even if they come from a hero like Tamer El Noury.
mortimer says
El-Noury is creating his own sanitized version of Islam which incorporates something that Allah left out of the Koran … the Golden Rule of Universal Reciprocity. Islam does not practice the Golden Rule, though some Muslims who are not fully informed ASSUME the Golden Rule is part of Islam. IT IS NOT.
El-Noury is ill-informed about what Islam actually teaches. The second most important teaching of Islam is AL WALAA WAL BARAA, the duty to hate, avoid and humiliate dirty kufaar ‘for the sake of Allah’.
El-Noury doesn’t realize that AL WALAA WAL BARAA is normative Islam, rather than an aberration.
Nana says
Excuse me- but you base these claims on what exactly??? How much do you actually know about Islam and its history, its scriptures, etc. I am really tired of people who know next to nothing except a few terms and phrases they’ve heard here and there and make these ridiculous claims.
For someone to truly understand something, they may spend the better part of their lives learning about it, and even then, they won’t be complete scholars about it.
Many people take things out of context, out of the specific circumstances that certain verses were revealed in and use them as fear tactics.
Denny Lee Penticoff says
Excuse me, but you base you assumptions on what exactly? Although I concur life is continual learning it does not require a lifetime to become a scholar of Islam or Islamic history. Only someone who lacks knowledge of Islam and its history would use the “out of context” cop out so prevalent in the West. Islam is a militant, supremacist ideology. All major jurisprudential Islamic schools agree. History proves it. Were it not, Islam would likely not exist other than perhaps as a tiny demographic in the Arabian peninsula. Denial of this basic fact is neither scholarship nor prudent.
Tjhawk says
Khizr Khan does something similar. He takes the sacrifice of his son, and his status as a gold star dad, to push islamic propaganda. He uses his gold star as a golden ticket to a world where he can say what he wants about islam, and never be challenged.
underbed cat says
Tamer El Noury…..might be tame on his ancestry, funny his name is tamer….controlled behavior. Almost like the name lynch or jahada…anyway I will have to watch this episode. Yes, if he is convinced his religion is hijacked it is almost really for the camera to declare Islam is not Islam, for which he will be protected for lying from Allah, which the public does not understand. It also gives the strong sense he is the deceiving the FBI, and could be playing both sides a dangerous game. I wonder if they could ask him about Paddock…then he would have to be really careful. Does anyone know why the Saudi Air Force was in Vegas the month of Aug,? Again an allie?
underbed cat says
Something about this 60 minute episode in my opinion seemed off. First the danger for this muslim, if in fact he is a muslim, to be identified and then by stating muslims should not fight jihad, nor support it. Then the disingenuous statement since it is clearly a obligation if you are pious and follow the Quran. Did he alert the other jihadist who he plotted with and who he befriended, then they could sacrifice one guy and choose another location.? El Noury used an older person appearance, that adds to the credible statement that Isis put out about S. Paddock, older person with wealth. Did the FBI think he could be another Green Prince that will turn away from Islam, if he is truly a muslim.
Benedict says
“I am a Muslim and I am an American, and I am appalled at what these animals are doing to my country while desecrating my religion.” –
It is not possible to desecrate Islam. Islam is in itself a desecrator that desecrates human beings and anyone who adheres to its unholy teachings and follows its deceiving prophet. No ostensible good deeds of any Muslim or non-Muslim can sanctify Islam.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
High Fitzgerald writes, “Islam is not a hieratic mystery which non-Muslims cannot possibly comprehend. We can read the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira.”
But we can’t comprehend the Qur’an when we get translations like this:
“We will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.” 3:151
I find it hard to figure out the grammar, much less the meaning, of word-strings like “for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority”. Can somebody please translate this translation into English? What kind of authority is “never authority”? Does “for that” mean “because”? How can lodging, which is inanimate, be evil? And who are these “evildoers”? Are they the same as the unbelievers?
gravenimage says
Mark–with all respect–this passage is not that difficult to parse:
“We will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.” 3:151
You seem to have been thrown by the placement of “never”–it is just in the wrong spot. Here is how Qur’an.com translates Qur’an 3:151:
“We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.”
So your passage should read:
“We will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He never sent down authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.”
So this Sura–while evil–is pretty straightforward.
Casting terror into the hearts of the unbeliever is pretty self-explanatory; it means that Muslims will terrorize non-Muslims.
“Associating with Allah that for which He never sent down authority” means ‘associating partners with Allah’–this can be a reference to polytheism; or it can be a reference to Christian belief in the Trinity (this is the most common reference today). Never mind that Christianity is a monotheist faith. Muslims even believe–quite erroneously–that Jews associate Ezra as the son of God.
So Muslims consider *any* non-Muslims to be either “polytheists” or atheists.
As for “their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers”, this refers to the Islamic belief that all “polytheists” are going to hell–really, that all non-Muslims are going to hell.
And Muslims are, as always, eager to hasten “polytheists” to their “abode” in hell, but slaughtering them.
I hope this helped.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Thank you, graven image, your explanation did indeed help. But why did the translator put “never” in a seemingly random spot in the sentence? Was the translator not a native speaker of English (NSE), or did no NSE proofread his work? I am also puzzled by the word “authority”; authority to do what? Authority to associate something (e.g., justice, omnipotence) with Allah? May we not associate Allah with goodness, because Allah never sent down (how?) any authority to do so? Notice that the association is not restricted to persons/partners/sidekicks, but could be an association with, say, 99 attributes. With passages like this, I associate Allah with the inability to create clear expository writing. Do I need Allah’s authorization to make this association? Am I going to the Fire for making this unauthorized association? (These question can all be taken as rhetorical.)
Jack Diamond says
If only we had just to worry about a few “lost souls” taking up arms against us and not have to worry about the whole fucking umma.
Al Qaeda and ISIS are convenient scapegoats to deflect attention from the permanent hostility of the community of believers and their obligatory mission. But that subject is verboten. The contents of the Qur’an and Sunnah are off-limits too. All the media needs us to hear is that we have a good loyal Muslim helping us entrap bad terrorist Muslims, proof enough we have nothing to fear from the majority of Muslims or from their benign Islam. The fact the jihadists have the commands of the Qur’an and Sunnah on their side and would win any argument about the matter is irrelevant. We need the good will of our Muslim allies to win this war (to paraphrase everyone in our government). Ah, but which war?
underbed cat says
Muslim influence and marketing. Deception is always necessary otherwise the truth would slam the entry door and delay or stop islamic jihad, warfare both of the mind and body to strike fear into the hearts of the infidels, and wear down the normal people to submit. The deception is the lie or trickery, which they use to (silence) pat down criticism and claim they are victims of our intolerance, racism or hate when they have knowingly used our democracy, freedoms, religious protection and tolerance that works for Islam, since no one bothers to know the doctrine, don’t believe those who do, are totally ignorant that Islam is Islam, is taught in the mosques and have allowed the enemy to come on shore and kill Americans. The ummah is worldwide suppression of those already conquered. It ain’t pretty.
Voytek Gagalka says
As a member of Ummah he, El-Noury, simply cannot say anything against Islam per se. He can condemn (or excuse) some of his fellow members (call them “misguided lost souls”) but he cannot undermine authority of Mohammed. Thus he prefers to cast some shadow on (just few, according to him) fellow members but avoid at all costs putting a slightest shadow on their ideology, i.e., Islam. That is the reason of his ambiguity and avoidance in that matter, i.e., “his filiopietistic misunderstanding of the faith.”
gravenimage says
Good analysis, Voytek.
Even decent Muslims feel the need to whitewash Islam.
I wonder about leftists says
Never, ever underestimate the DARK SIDE. This man, I don’t have the right feeling about him, he really does not condemn Islam, he stays on that half way statements with the ambiguity and avoidance.
anti jihad says
If you take any web sites, you can see convert to Islam,illegal immigration,solicitors, Polygamy etc other areas are weapon sale, drug , 34 children for a man, marrying non Muslims to increase population, love jihad, terrorism, Muhammadans quote, jihad, hijab, government fund, Koran( terrorism agonist), Imam and hate preachers, Mosque(radical).
But western countries , women convert to Islam, moving to Muslim world for relation, then easy to make trade links. Result is Muslim relatives(refugees) are coming to non Muslim countries for proxies.
Even Kurds are Muslim.
Nancy says
While reading this, I can’t help but be reminded of those that say that the Christian Bible contains many references to violence. They justify the violence in the Qu’ran this way. I also don’t really trust anything that happens on the TV Show 60 minutes.
jewdog says
It’s a total disgrace that there is so much reluctance to examine Islamic texts honestly in the West. I think the reason is that it might undermine the principle that Muslims are always victims with grievances as opposed to Westerners who can be bigots and racists.
Monty says
The West dares not offend Islam. It has become dependent on Muslim trade, investment and finance to survive. It is instructive just to look at Qatar’s investments in the UK and how the Royal Family treats the Qatar’s rulers as VIPs. UK trade’s arms trade with the Middle East is substantial. Offend Muslims and all that goes south. The love of money is at the root of this particular evil.
underbed cat says
I agree with you Monty, the massive money available from the middle east in the from of trade, economic development is the tie that binds and blinds in the U.K. and just as much in the U.S. especially the banking systems and stock markets and due to the “endowments” to major universities across the country. Advertising the “Financial Capital of World” Qatar” Bahrain, pops up every now and then, as an ad that first shocked me during a football game. I think there are massive developments of mosques and apartments going on with this money even in my midwestern state. Prince al Aweed bin Talah comes to mind with his declaration of 40% increase in the stock market due to Saudi money almost like a threat that we own you and to remain silent.
Adrian says
El-Noury started off by saying “we are not at war with Islam”, then added about how the few lost souls are “desecrating my religion.”
As a self-admitted raised devout Muslim, he will always persist in laying these smokescreens…
Unfortunately, regardless of all the good he has done to uncover and foil specific attacks, El-Noury has muddied the waters in public perception which leads to public policy. His defense of his beloved ideology is what lead Obama to ban references to “jihad”, “Islam” etc in 2012.
I wonder why the interviewer never asked him if his religion is so “benign” ther why did El-Noury not infiltrate Amish or Buddhist groups as well?
UNCLE VLADDI says
He’s in denial and still thinks a “moderate islam” exists out there somewhere, no doubt near the unicorns and other mythological creatures.
Dacritic says
Hugh, brilliant article as always.
Just a thought here about your suggestion on what El Noury could say:
“I do what I can, about the most dangerous ones, but I can only hope that another understanding of Islam, one that will permit real coexistence between Muslims and all others, will come into being. It means, to begin with, for Muslims not to deny but to recognize what the ideology of Islam now inculcates. It requires us to fight for another interpretation. It won’t be easy to achieve. But we must try.”
Now, ultimately, the “another understanding of Islam” is not what we, the Unbelievers, want either. I just plainly want El Noury to understand Islam for what it is at its core, and perhaps one day declare: “The terrorists, the jihadis, the ones we call the ‘extremists’… are right about Islam. I have realised that they are not desecrating my religion, they are following it. I was the one desecrating my religion by getting those guys arrested and incarcerated. And therefore from here on in, since my personal values are at odds with this… religion, I hereby announce I am renouncing Islam and am no longer a Muslim.”
We are dreaming. We might as well dream big.
Monty says
Islamic terrorism is not the problem. It is a distraction from the real issue. The West if being invaded by Muslims, period. They do not need to kill and maim in order to achieve their aims. Of course an element of Islam enjoys inflicting maximum pain on their passive victims. They will simply out breed the locals. Those nations foolish enough to permit open slather immigration will cease to exist as independent, free and open societies. The rot has already set in in much of Europe. Uncovering terrorist plots is not going to change that.