Thread: Panic Mode: Khizr Khan Deletes Law Firm Website that Specialized in Muslim Immigratio

August 1, 2016
Is there a backstory about Khizr Khan and Donald Trump?
By Eileen F. Toplansky

What is one to make of the Democratic Convention speech of Khizr Khan, a Pakistani-born Virginia lawyer whose son Humayun was killed in action in Iraq in 2004?

According to Byron York:

Khan's brief speech wasn't a finely-detailed case. But he suggested that Trump's Muslim ban and Mexican border wall proposals are unconstitutional. Specifically, Khan cited the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of the law' in suggesting that Trump's policies violate the Constitution.

But, in fact, "there's simply no sense in which a border wall violates the Constitution." There is also "nothing unconstitutional about deporting people who are in the United States illegally."

York emphasizes that "[a]s far as a Muslim ban is concerned, Trump ... amended his proposal to focus on immigration from countries 'compromised by terrorism.' But assume that Khan was addressing Trump's original, more extensive, proposal: a temporary ban on foreign Muslims from entering the United States."

In fact, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution applies to "all persons born or naturalized" in the United States. It does not refer to foreign persons in foreign countries. Trump made it clear that this ban "would not apply to U.S. citizens, members of the U.S. military and others with a legal right to be in the United States." Whether one approves or disapproves of Trump's building a wall, deporting illegal immigrants, and temporarily banning the entry of foreign Muslims, the fact is that Trump's proposals are not unconstitutional.

In an effort toward clarification, Donald Trump released a statement:

Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe. The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm. Given the state of the world today, we have to know everything about those looking to enter our country, and given the state of chaos in some of these countries, that is impossible.

Moreover, Trump reiterated that "Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero, but this is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR and the weakness of our 'leaders' to eradicate it!"

But is there even more to the story about Khizr Khan? According to Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat, Mr. Khizr Muazzam Khan is a promoter of Islamic sharia law and a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (sharia). In fact, in the past, Khizr Khan has shown "his appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood" by the name of Said Ramadan, who "wrote material for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, an organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihadism." Mr. Said Ramadan was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood including Ahmad Bahefzallah, the boss of Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton's aide)[.]"

Should this connection give us pause?

Shoebat writes that "Khizr Khan currently runs a law firm in New York called KM Khan Law Office, a firm that specializes in 'immigration services.'"

According to Shoebat, "[t]o understand the inception of Muslim immigration one must study the Muslim Minority Affairs, a paradigm created by Saudi jurisprudence which sparked during the times Khan lived in Saudi Arabia while collaborating with the Saudi kingdom. It is likely that Khan is a Muslim plant working with the Hillary Clinton campaign, probably for the interest of Muslim oil companies as well as Muslim immigration into the U.S."

Khizr M. Khan used to work for Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, which has ties to the Clinton Foundation. Accordingly, "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."

In fact, Shoebat relates how "[m]any lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber. Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues."

Shoebat emphasizes that "Saudi interests with using Khan to advance Muslim immigration and advance Muslim Sharia is a lengthy subject [.]" "Then there are the ... ties to Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin as well. The House of Saud had used Huma’s father Sayed Zaynul Abedin’s work regarding the Muslim Minority Affairs in the West, published in 1998 as part of 29 works to construct a plan to conquer the U.S. with Islam."

Shoebat maintains that "[i]t 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 Khan and Huma Abedin’s father (Sayed Z. Abedin)."

Huma Abedin has never been properly vetted, and this takes on even greater urgency now that Clinton is running for the presidency. The mainstream media continues to cover up the Muslim Brotherhood's enormous clout in the Obama administration. Each day brings new revelations about the financial influence and "access" the Saudis have exerted on the Clinton team. Patrick Poole, a national security analyst, asserts that "[t]here are massive conflicts of interest. It's beyond comprehension."

So is it wrong to impugn Khan's motives? He appears to be a man in mourning for his son. Was Mr. Khan merely being used by the Clinton campaign to advance Clinton's agenda? Or is there an even larger issue concerning the influence such people as Abedin and Khan exert concerning Clinton's bid for the highest office in the land?

The questions need answers.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ald_trump.html

Thank you again, Judy, for posting the articles.

The following mentions that Mr. Khan's former employer was part of WikiLeaks dump from the DNC as it relates to fundraising for the Democratic Party.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...nc-email-dump/

Seems odd to totally delete your website for business as Mr. Khan did.

Related:
http://www.alipac.us/f9/khizr-khan-l...ative-335593/?

Khizr Khan Has Written Extensively On Sharia Law

3:35 PM 08/01/2016



Khizr Khan, the Muslim father of a slain American soldier, is an attorney who has previously written in a law journal about Islamic law. He specifically wrote about the purity of the Quran and the Sunnah over all other texts and interpretations.

Khan rose to fame after speaking at the Democratic National Convention Thursday and pulling out a pocket U.S. Constitution imploring if Donald Trump had even read it.

Khan wrote “Juristic Classification Of Islamic Law” in the Houston Journal of International Law in 1983. In it he breaks down different levels of Islamic law. Khan writes that the Quran and the Sunnah which were both directly created by the Muslim prophet Muhammad were the only sources in Muhammad’s lifetime that “were recognized as binding.”

“The Shari’ah-was completed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed, in the Quran and Sunnah. This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited,” Khan continues to write. “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.”

In the journal article, Khan goes on to explain the importance of Islamic laws and interpretations to Muslim followers. He writes that: “The present form of the Quran is one and the same in every part of the Muslim world, and it has been so all through the centuries. This, Muslims believe, is due to the fact that the compilation and arrangement of chapters was completed-under divine instructions-by the Prophet himself.”

It is due to this that Khan writes, “to Muslims, the Quran being the very word of God, it is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.”

Khizr Khan (R), accompanied by his wife Ghazala Khan (L), walks off stage after speaking about their son US Army
Captain Humayun Khan who was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq 12 years ago, on the final night of the Democratic
National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center, July 28, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. / AFP / Robyn Beck
(Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)

The Muslim attorney writes that, “it has to be admitted, however, that the Quran, being basically a book of religious guidance, is not an easy reference for legal studies. It is more particularly an appeal to faith and the human soul rather than a classification of legal prescriptions.” Khan added that, “the major portion of the Quran is, as with every Holy Book, a code of divine exhortation and moral principals.”

The attorney has law degrees from Punjab University in Pakistan and Harvard University.

Khan then goes on to write about the Sunnah. This is the “human, though prophetic, clarification of the Quran by Muhammed.” The rest of the journal is about interpretations of Islamic law by Islamic jurists distant from Muhammed himself. These are called Qiyas.

Khan includes quotes from Islamic scholars from Qiyas. One of them from Said Abu Hanifa, who says it is, “slanderous is their saying that we give our qiyas any priority over the Shariah. Do we need opinion when there is a sacred text?”

A short biography of Khan in the journal article says that he is the author of “In Defense of OPEC” and “Legal Index of the Quran.” It also lists that he is the co-founder of Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law. Both these texts and the journal were not able to be found in a search of academic databases.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/kh...#ixzz4GCxvMHE4

Deleted website: kmkhanlaw.com

Tuesday, Aug 2, 2016 12:00 PM PST

Khizr Khan: U.S. wars “have created a chaos” in Muslim-majority countries

The media amplified Khizr Khan's patriotism—but not his criticism of US foreign policy and the "quagmire" it led to



Khizr Khan, the Pakistani American father of a U.S. soldier who died in Iraq, has become something of a media celebrity in the past week.

At the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Khan and his wife Ghazala denounced Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for his racist, anti-Muslim policies.

Trump responded by maliciously attacking the Khans, and a political scandal has ensued.

Many media outlets have amplified Khizr Khan’s patriotic sentiments. Significantly less attention, however, has been paid to Khan’s criticism of U.S. wars and his lamentation that “We have created a chaos” and a “quagmire” in Muslim-majority countries.

Khizr and Ghazala Khan spoke on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Monday, Aug. 1. Fifteen minutes into the program, after Khan harshly condemned Islamist extremists for “hijacking” his religion, host Chris Matthews briefly asked Khan about U.S. wars in Muslim-majority countries.

“What do you think, or feel, when you see us attack Iraq, or go into Afghanistan after Osama bin Laden? Or we go attack, we bombed Libya. We’re bombing Syria now, all Islamic countries,” he said. “What do you feel, as an Islamic man?”

“As a Muslim American I feel that these policies are not in the interest of the United States of America,” Khan replied, with a look of distress.

“And we see the result of it,” he continued. “We are more vulnerable now. We have created a chaos.”

“Well you know, you’re speaking to the choir,” Matthews laughed.

Khan added, “I wish this country would have listened to Chris Matthews when he was talking, when he was preaching. We could have saved ourselves from this quagmire.”

“I didn’t think Iraq made any sense, and I think you agree,” the host responded.

Matthews then segued back to Donald Trump, to whom they devoted much more time.

In total, they only discussed U.S. foreign policy for 50 seconds in the 15-minute “Hardball” interview.

This brief excerpt, in which Khizr Khan criticizes militaristic U.S. foreign policy, is not included in the isolated clips for the episode on MSNBC’s website. One has to watch the full episode to see it.

Khan’s criticisms came on the same day that the U.S. launched a new bombing campaign in Libya. In fact, while Khan was stirring up patriotic sentiment on air, MSNBC’s breaking news lower third below him reported: “U.S. launches a new campaign of airstrikes.”

This new war comes just five years after the previous NATO war plunged the oil-rich North African nation into chaos, empowering extremist groups and allowing ISIS to consolidate its largest regime outside of Iraq and Syria.

The Obama administration dropped 23,144 bombs on six Muslim-majority countries in 2015. Libya is now the seventh country with ongoing U.S. air strikes.
As he noted, Chris Matthews was indeed critical in the lead-up to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. He was also somewhat skeptical of the 2011 war in Libya and the Obama administration’s attempt in 2013 to launch a bombing campaign in Syria.

Yet Matthews’ record isn’t entirely consistent. In May 2003, when then-President George W. Bush declared “victory” in Iraq, Matthews commended “the president’s amazing display of leadership.”

“The president deserves everything he’s doing tonight in terms of his leadership,” Matthews exclaimed. “He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.”

Moreover, in 2014, as the U.S. launched new wars against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Matthews declared, “When it comes down to how we fight this, everybody seems to be for air attacks, airstrikes. Everybody is for drone attacks.”

Likewise, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has also applauded Khan and used his story to attack Trump, is one of the most hawkish figures in U.S. politics.

Clinton voted and lobbied for the invasion of Iraq, helped lead the catastrophic 2011 war in Libya and pushed for a much more aggressive policy in Syria, contributing greatly to the “chaos” and “quagmire” Khan railed against.

Salon contacted the Clinton campaign with a request for comment, but did not immediately receive a response.

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/02/khiz...ity_countries/

The above article is proof that his statements at the Democratic Convention attacking Trump had nothing to do with Trump's policies, except for the ban on Muslim immigration in which Khan has a deep and long financial connection because he's an immigration lawyer specializing in visas for rich Muslims wanting to migrate to the United States!! His attack on Trump had nothing to do with his son, it had nothing to do with Trump, except the BAN that would cut off Khan's gravy train he's been lining his pockets with for many years.

Khan is a Con.

Related:
http://www.alipac.us/f9/khizr-khan-d...ascist-335647/

Katrina Pierson, Trump spokesperson, is on CNN telling about these revelations.

Damn! I'd been CNN all day and just switched to MSNBC to see what Bloomberg Politics had to say. It's now on commercial, maybe she'll still be on after the break. No, it's over. Rats.