Books and Documents

The War Within Islam (08 Sep 2018 NewAgeIslam.Com)

The Concept of Takfir – Declaring a Muslim a Disbeliever – Is a Very Modern Propaganda Weapon of Al-Qaeda and Daesh Having Its Roots in 7th Century – The Khawarij And Murji’a Groups

By Francesco Bergoglio Errico

September 6, 2018

The concept of Takfir – declaring a Muslim a disbeliever – is a very modern propaganda weapon of al-Qaeda and Daesh. But its origins are to be found in distant times. Indeed, in order to better understand this concept, it is essential to travel all the way back to the 7th Century roots – the Khawarij and Murji’a groups.

The Khawarij emerged from the battle of Siffin in 657 AD, where the fourth caliph ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and his successor Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan clashed. During the battle, Mu’awiya’s troops, outnumbered and facing almost certain defeat, called on ‘Ali and his troops to accept arbitration between the two parties. ‘Ali took up the offer, but some of his own troops rejected it. They thought that ‘Ali had been swayed by Mu’awiya rather than divine guidance and that such an action should actually be seen as an affront to God’s order. These troops then seceded from ‘Ali’s camp and became the Khawarij group, the name they also applied to themselves.

The group’s first distinctive tenet concerned the possibility of revolt against Muslim rulers who had been deemed insufficiently pious. When ‘Ali agreed to arbitration with Mu’awiya, the separatists, the people later known as Khawarij, reportedly shouted “La Hukm Illa Li-Llah”, “judgement is God’s alone”. Only God has the authority to arbitrate, they held, not human beings. Not even the caliph ‘Ali, in fact.

Later on, the slogan came to represent their broad view that all judgements and rulings should be left to God. Applying Qur’anic rulings very strictly, they fought Muslims who were deemed guilty of major sins and expelled them from their community.

The consequences could not be more serious. Since they believed sinful Muslims to be Kuffar (disbelievers), they immediately applied Qur’anic lines concerning jihad against non-Muslims. This meant that, according to the Khawarij, the application of jihad was not just limited to ordinary people. If necessary, it could even include the caliph. Indeed, they assassinated ‘Ali in 661 AD.

The second tenet of Khawarij ideology addressed their conception of Iman (faith) and disbelief. In particular, what is faith? And when does a Muslim become a Kafir, a disbeliever? One of the greatest questions was whether A’mal, or deeds, acts or works, were an integral part of the faith or not. Some theologians of Islam’s early years, including Abu Hanifa, believed they were not a part of it. As a result, he equated Iman with the belief residing in the heart and its profession by tongue.

Conversely, other scholars, including Mu’tazilites and Hanabalites, believed that deeds, acts or works were indeed an integral part of Iman and that this Iman would not be complete without them.

Among other outcomes, this dispute led to what may be called the orthodox Sunni view, as well as almost all Salafi views, according to which Iman consists of assent to the Iman in the heart, its verbal confirmation by the tongue, and corresponding acts with the limbs. Respectively, Tasdeeq Bi-L-Qalb, Iqrar Bi-L-Lisan and A’mal Bi-L-Jawarih

As for the Khawarij themselves, even though they too believed that Iman consisted of these three elements and others, they placed more emphasis on A’mal than mainstream Sunnism does.

The question of what actually constitutes Iman is very important when defining enemies as unbelievers. On the one hand, if A’mal is not an integral part of Iman, sinful acts cannot undermine that Iman by themselves. On the other, if A’mal is an integral part of the Iman, sinful acts can definitely compromise faith.

Moreover, while Sunni scholars have separated major sins, Kaba’ir, from less severe ones, the Khawarij have included A’mal among major sins, such as killing one’s child, adultery and especially polytheism and idolatry, or shirk.

Scholars later separated shirk from other Kaba’ir, establishing that only an act of shirk would immediately turn a Muslim into an unbeliever, or Kafir, and therefore justify his or her excommunication from Islam, Takfir. Additionally, any further proof of a person’s unbelief through verbal confirmation was not necessary. Other major sins were certainly still considered serious and deserving of punishment, but they were not enough to turn a believer into a disbeliever – further proof was needed.

The Khawarij disagreed with this last point since, according to their beliefs; a Muslim culpable of any Kaba’ir should be avowed a Kafir, with or without further proof. This creed thus heightened ordinary major sins to the level of Kufr, making its adherents swifter to apply Takfir than those endorsing the movement later known as Sunnism.

The last relevant point about the concepts of Iman and Kufr concerns the effects of sinful acts on a person’s Iman. Not considering sins as equal to shirk, many scholars believed faith to be diminished by sinful acts and increased by good ones. This led to an understanding of Iman as flexible. The Khawarij, by contrast, believed that iman could not fluctuate. It was either present or lost as a whole through major sins. This made the Khawarij radically different from other groups, and this was reflected in their use of jihad against other Muslims holding what the Khawarij saw as aberrant ideas of iman, which made them legitimate targets, up to and including the rulers and the caliph.

Another important group criticized the beliefs of Khawarij – the Murji’a. According to most scholars, the genesis of the Murji’a can traced back to the conflicts between the third caliph, ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan, and his successor ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. At that time, the Murji’a refused to take sides and opted for postponement of judgement, irja’, in such matters. In their view, only God could decide on these subjects. Before taking the name of Murji’a, this group were called Ahl-Al-‘Adl Wa-L-Sunna, or “the people of justice and Sunna”.

The Irja’ “postponers” concept was later dated back to the Qur’an itself by the Murji’a, in particular by referring to Sura 9:106. This verse provided them with a conceptual basis for avoiding taking sides in the conflict. In time, the Irja’ term became the most important tenet of the Murji’a.

In that regard, there are two important relevant points. The first is the development of the term Irja’. While it was initially applied to political conflicts such as the battle between ‘Uthman and ‘Ali, between the 18th and 19th Centuries it acquired a theological meaning. In particular, Irja’ was applied to people’s Iman; in other words, judgments on anyone’s faith was postponed and left to God. For that reason, unlike the Khawarij, adherents were generally loyal to rulers and only rarely supported riots against them.

The second point regards their conception of what constitutes faith and disbelief. Once again, unlike the Khawarij, they felt that Iman only consisted of the belief residing in the heart and its confirmation by the tongue, not concrete acts. Consequently, acts alone do not establish whether an individual is a believer or a disbeliever. When the takfir of such an individual was justified, then, they could ask.

In fact, from the Murji’a perspective, the Kaba’ir intrinsically could not throw someone out from Islam, except in the case of a sinner verbally confirming his disbelief, including shirk. Additionally, unlike the Khawarij and orthodox Sunni, they didn’t believe that faith could be altered by sinful acts and therefore excluded A’mal from Iman.

All of this contested history of the Takfir concept flows down to our own times.  Al-Qaeda and Daesh both use the ancient concept to justify their goals and their jihadi attacks on Muslims they see as disbelievers, including rulers. In their view, these people are enemies who are destroying the true Islam and the whole Ummah (community of believers), so jihad is warranted, indeed mandated. They defend this position by manipulating many passages of the Qu’ran and Hadith.

It is very important to underline this, because an increasingly high number of people now take the manipulations as truth, radicalizing themselves, embracing jihad, and becoming fascinated and indoctrinated by terrorist propaganda that promises salvation of the soul and access to paradise to those who embrace the “true way” or the “true Islam”.

This makes it crucial to understand what Takfir is and how the concepts of Takfir and jihad are used by the terrorist groups, not only to better comprehend how they justify their existence and their bloodshed, but also, above all, in fact, to improve strategies of disengagement and deradicalisation.

Related Article:

Demolish Kafir/ Mushrik/ Munafiq-Manufacturing Factories, Says Sultan Shahin, Defending New Age Islam against Talibani Onslaught

Source: eeradicalization.com/the-road-to-daesh-the-history-of-the-takfir-and-its-interpretations/

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/the-war-within-islam/francesco-bergoglio-errico/the-concept-of-takfir-–-declaring-a-muslim-a-disbeliever-–-is-a-very-modern-propaganda-weapon-of-al-qaeda-and-daesh-having-its-roots-in-7th-century-–-the-khawarij-and-murji’a-groups/d/116321


  • It is Ghulam Uncle Sam (GUS) who has run out of arguments and therefore has been using words such as "loony", "idiotic", "dim-witted", "stupid" etc. These words describe him.

     One must have above normal IQ to ferret out a hidden devotee of Uncle Sam who alternates between extreme cleverness and extreme stupidity as it suits him. He may not be a real devotee but only a hypocritical one for self-preservation, and if so, he deserves pity.

     Is GUS saying that the Chilcot Report that directly connects war on Iraq with 911 is also part of a "Conspiracy Theory"?

     Is GUS saying that General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia, and Democratic Party presidential nomination as a candidate in 2003, is also a “Conspiracy theorist” for saying the following in the interview and in his book Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003?


     In the interview, Clark describes his conversation with a General in the Pentagon nine days after 9/11 in which the General called him in and said “We’ve made a decision, we are going to war with Iraq”, Clark asked him ‘why’ and the General answered “I don’t know, I guess they don’t know what else to do” Clark asked “did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al-Qaeda?” The General said “No, no, there is nothing new that way, they just made a decision to go to war with Iraq. I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do with the terrorists, but we got a good military and can take down governments”.

     Clark further says that he came back to see the general a few weeks later and by that time the US were bombing in Afghanistan and he asked him, “do you still want to go to war with Iraq?”. He replied, “it is worse than that”, he then picked up a paper and said, “I just got this from the Secretary of Défense’s office, it is a memo that describes how we will take out seven countries in five years beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."

     The Chilcot Report makes it clear that Tony Blair prevailed upon Bush not to immediately attack Iraq but create a better argument for doing so, and after enlisting the support of UN and a coalition of countries. Blair changed his stand in 3 months and by December, he was rooting along with Bush, for attacking Iraq claiming it possessed WMD.


    Why was there a 911 event?

    Joe Wilson, last ambassador in Baghdad before the war, refers to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comment: "There are no targets worth striking in Afghanistan, go strike Baghdad."

    Then he recollects the statement made by Bush at a fundraiser that "they tried to kill my daddy". 

    But the heart of the reason, Wilson believes, lies in a document called the Project for the New American Century.  In it, a group that came to be known as the "Neo-Cons" postulate an American military presence around the world, rather like the great Roman Empire. "It says quite clearly that in order to make their grandiose imperialistic ambitions come to life, you were going to need a cataclysmic event along the lines of Pearl Harbor - 9/11 provided them that."

    Linked to this, Wilson argues, is a Middle East policy the Neo-Cons espoused. "They talked in terms of the way to peace in the Middle East is not through Jerusalem, it is through Baghdad."

    The question again - why would the administration want to link 9/11 to Iraq?

    "Nine-eleven got connected to Iraq because you can't argue with 9/11. Every American out there and most people worldwide have a gut reaction to 9/11. It is the perfect selling point" Says Geoff Millard.

    Will GUS also say that Joe Wilson is a conspiracy theorist?

    What Ambassador Joe Wilson said fully corroborates what General Wesley Clark said although they are speaking based on completely different and distinct sources of information. The Chilcot report also confirms that Bush wanted to immediately attack Iraq but Tony Blair held him off for sometime although not enough to make him seek the mandate of the UN for attacking Iraq. Blair aligned completely with Bush by December 2001.

    While no one of any consequence, and not even Bush and Blair delink 911 with war on Iraq, GUS argues otherwise. What motivates him to show such devotion to Uncle Sam that he has to be more loyal than the King?

    Ghulam Uncle Sam wants us to believe that Uncle Sam had nothing to do with 911, but were fortuitously presented with the very cataclysmic event that they were hoping and wishing for! He ignores all the evidence of the acts of omission and commission that implicate the US government in 911. If the US government did not cause 911, then why are they afraid of an open inquiry and investigation of the reasons for the collapse? Can he find even one of the supporters of the Official lies, who have addressed the question of free-fall of WTC7 through 8 stories for 2.25 seconds? If there is no explanation for it except Controlled Demolition, then it was a controlled demolition.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/23/2018 1:01:41 AM

  • Anyone with a normal I.Q. who has been reading my comments in NAI would not call me "Ghulam Uncle Sam", but it is typical of Naseer sb. especially when he has no more valid arguments left! The fact that Iraq was targeted by U.S. policy makers does not mean that America would attack its own cities and kill its own citizens to start a war with Iraq! Such an argument is idiotic at best.

    9/11 was never seriously linked to Iraq except in the minds of loony conspiracy theorists. If it was, they would never have had to come up with the WMD excuse.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/22/2018 11:36:02 AM

  • Ghulam Uncle Sam has indeed lost all his marbles to think that the war against Iraq had nothing to do with 911. War with Iraq was part of the US' "War on Terror", following the 9/11 attack, as set out in a 2003 State Department document. Both Bush and Tony Blair openly made 911 the cause for a “war on terror” which included war to change the Saddam regime. A four star highly decorated General of the US army informs us, based on a visit to Pentagon, a week after 911, that the US plan was to wage war against seven countries in the next five years. youtube.com/watch?v=B3B5xzApMZg

    No one to my knowledge has even attempted to delink 911 from the war against Iraq. The only exception is Ghulam Uncle Sam. This slave of Uncle Sam is more loyal than the King!

    According to the Chilcot report, the 911 incident fundamentally changed" the US and UK's approach to Iraq,  hardening the pair's (Bush and Blair) view of Saddam Hussein's regime.

    The report concludes that after the 9/11 attacks, the West abandoned its previous policy of "containment" in favour of stamping out threatening regimes.

     The Chilcot Report says then UK foreign secretary Jack Straw told the inquiry "that the attacks led to a consensus across the world that a policy of tolerating failing or failed states was unacceptable. The perception of risk changed."

    Chilcot says the sheer scale of the carnage wreaked by Al-Qaeda changed the thinking.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/22/2018 12:53:10 AM

  • Trying to link 9/11 to Iraq after 9/11 happened is not the same thing as engineering 9/11 in order  to attack Iraq.

    One has to be very ignorant about America to think that any American government would be  treasonous and foolhardy enough to be involved in such a huge, destructive and murderous attack on its own people and on American soil.

    One would have to be very stupid to think that if there was even the slightest hint of conspiracy then the most aggressive press in the world including the New York Times and the Washington Post, and famed reporters such as Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward and Seymour Hersh would be sitting on their hands doing nothing when they have in the past and even now created reports deeply embarrassing to the government. No reputed journalist, securities expert or scientist has touched the conspiracy theories with even a ten foot pole.

    Your deep-rooted need to believe in such lunatic theories is your problem. Nobody can help you with it.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/20/2018 1:03:10 PM

  • GM sb conveniently forgets that Bush tried his best to link Iraq to 911 and when his efforts failed, he accused them of having WMDs and in general accused Saddam's regime as an encouragement  for  Al Qaeda. The efforts to implicate Iraq  to wage war against it started in 2001 immediately following 911.The bombing of Afghanistan started a few weeks after 911 without giving diplomacy a chance.

    General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia.


    speaks of the prior plan to wage war against 7 countries and the US has waged war against four of them post 911.

    Major General Albert Stubblebine is credited with redesigning the U.S. Army intelligence architecture during his time as commanding general of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) from 1981 to 1984. Here him speak on the subject:


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/19/2018 11:05:56 PM

  • There was no stand down order on 9/11. If there was such an order, it would have come to public notice long ago.

    Any defensive shield can be pierced. In order  to shoot down a passenger plane the Air Force requires permission from the highest government authority. When flight 93 approached Washington DC, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered that it be shot down. However before it could be shot down it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

    WTC7 was not ready for controlled demolition. A controlled demolition was mentioned several days before 9/11 but no concrete action was taken.

    The likelihood of such an event occurring may be close to zero but it is not zero and it did occur.

    Both the CIA and FBI were severely criticized in official reports for their failures but since the failures were attributed to structural problems and lack of coordination, no individuals were penalized.

    Now let us examine Naseer sb.'s guesstimate of what happened on 9/11 and judge how bizarre and unrealistic that is:

    "1. The government made the terrorist plan a sub-plan to their own plan and aided and assisted them 2. They carried out the complete demolition of the buildings with prior planning to create a spectacle and generate intense horror designed for maximum effect. They created the illusion that this was entirely because of the terrorists crashing planes into the buildings. This horrifying event and spectacle were used to wage war and push through the PATRIOT act that deprives the citizens of the right to privacy. 3. The US government has a proven/admitted past record of staging events to wage/escalate war and to spread lies knowingly. That the US government did stage a Controlled Demolition and made it look as if the buildings collapsed because of a plane crashing into them, to serve their war agenda is believable from the speed and eagerness with which they attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and pushed through the PATRIOT act. It shows prior planning and readiness."

    (By the way, Naseer sb.  forgot that WMD's and not 9/11 was the stated justification of the attack on Iraq!)

    If this is the level of Naseer sb.'s gullibility we must remember it when reading his articles on Islam.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/19/2018 12:52:41 PM

  • The Pentagon, the White House and Capitol Hill are protected at multiple levels and no plane or missile can get anywhere near them and not get shot down by ground to air missiles. If a plane or missile hits any of these targets, it can only be if there is "stand down" order not to intercept the plane.


    The Plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania had taken off from Newark Airport and after being hijacked, turned around and was heading back towards New York and was most probably meant to hit WTC7. The 911 commission however say that it was probably meant to hit the White House. This is an obvious red herring and the flight path clearly shows that it was heading towards NY and not Washington before it crashed.  As already discussed, WTC7 was in full readiness to be brought down with Controlled Demolition, but unfortunately the plane that was to hit it, crashed into a field in Pennsylvania because of resistance put up by the passengers. The WTC7  was brought down nevertheless, blaming it on fires started by falling debris. The same falling debris did not affect the two WTC  towers standing between WTC1 and WTC7 or the Verizon building standing next to WTC7 and closer to WTC1.


    Cases are decided by circumstantial evidence by weighing the probabilities of occurrences.

    (1)   What is the probability, that on any given random day and time, a flying object could enter the protected zone around the Pentagon and not get shot down? The answer is zero.

    (2)   Now what is the probability that a plane known to have been hijacked and heading straight towards the Pentagon, can hit the Pentagon 47 minutes later without any action being taken to divert it or bring it down? Less than zero if that is possible.

    (3)   Now what is the probability, that it is known that two hijacked planes have crashed into the WTC, and a third hijacked plane is heading straight towards Pentagon, and the plane hits Pentagon 47 minutes later? Beyond imagination.



    What is the probability that after the unimaginable has happened, no heads roll, no one is held accountable, and no one is even reprimanded? This is beyond belief.

    So, if somebody believes in the official story what should we call him? We should call him a blind believer and devotee of Uncle Sam.

    To believe in Uncle Sam’s story, if the person consciously rejects the Laws of Physics and believes that what has shown to be a physical impossibility has occurred simply because Uncle Sam says so, then the believer has stronger faith in Uncle Sam than in Allah and His Laws of Physics.

    Ghulam Mohiyuddin is such a believer and devotee of Uncle Sam. He leaves Uncle Tom far behind and had he been born before, we would have called Uncle Tom, Ghulam Uncle Sam. From this day, we should call him Ghulam Uncle Sam.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/18/2018 11:15:09 PM

  • Naseer sb. persists with his dim-witted conspiracy theories on the basis of flimsy circumstantial evidence and factoids which can be retrospectively made to accord with a fanciful conspiratorial hypothesis. He seems to have no understanding of the simple fact that neither the FBI nor the CIA nor the NSA have ever been or could ever be implicated in a plot to kill thousands of American citizens on American soil using American passenger planes in order to justify starting new wars when there are a lot more easier ways for the American government to start such illegal wars. However it is obvious that Naseer sb. is not going to let reason prevail and will persist with his cockamamie theories.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/18/2018 1:10:50 PM

  • It is GM sb who shows that either he is naïve or a knave.

     What I have shown is that the FBI can and does create a plot, trap people into participating in the plot, help them with funds and material and clear all obstacles.

    What is known and admitted is that all three agencies the CIA, FBI and the NSA were aware of the possibility of such an incident and the CNN even broadcast an interview, 9 weeks prior to 911, purportedly with OBL, that OBL was planning a major attack. Bill Cooper, an independent broadcaster, warned that OBL would merely be the scapegoat and that something terrible was going to happen and used as an excuse to take away from the people their freedom. His words proved prophetic and he relentlessly pursued exposing the government’s lapses. Bill Cooper was shot dead shortly after 911. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phKiT2-94XU



    The FBI was aware of those taking flying lessons and tapped their conversations. All obstacles to carrying out the plan were apparently cleared and the otherwise certainty of the USAF bringing down the planes before they could do any damage was taken care of, and none of the four planes was intercepted by the USAF.


    The first hijack was at 8:14 AM which hit its target 32 minutes later, the second at 8:42 which hit its target 20 minutes later, the third hijack was at 8:50 which hit Pentagon 47 minutes later, the fourth hijack was at 9:28 which crashed because of resistance and fighting 35 minutes later. The drama of these four hijacked planes went on for I hour 45 minutes, and not even the plane that hit the Pentagon 47 minutes after being hijacked, and I hr 23 minutes after the first hijack, was intercepted by the USAF.


    Apparently, the terrorist plan was part of the government plan, and was helped through execution. When it comes to making war, there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans and the US media also fully supports it as part of their nationalist duty.  Stray broadcasters like Bill Cooper are therefore easily eliminated. Bill Cooper is not the only 911 related victim of targeted killing.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/18/2018 12:44:16 AM

  • Naseer saheb again reveals his naivete by quoting from the Report of The Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School. I fully agree with that report. Many FBI agents have deliberately tried to entrap unsophisticated Muslims, getting them to participate in "terrorist" plots. However these Muslims were arrested and prosecuted before any of these plots came to fruition. No bombs were set off and no machine guns were fired. To compare such activity to 9/11 when 2 iconic  skyscapers were destroyed, 4 passenger jets were crashed and some 3000 Americans were killed is silly and shows the desperation of Naseer sb. to advance his crazy conspiracy theory.

    Naseer sb. and Lol should share the Tom and Jerry award!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/17/2018 12:58:10 PM

  • Thanks Hats Off for exposing the farcical nature of the discussion that Ghulam Mohiyuddin carried out. 

    For those who are willing to learn more about the active role the FBI plays in acts of terrorism in the US, read: The Report of The Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/07/21/illusion-justice/human-rights-abuses-us-terrorism-prosecutions

    This is a report of incidents since 911. The first bombing of the WTC in 1993 was also with the active involvement of the FBI. An excerpt from the report:

     All of the high-profile domestic terrorism plots of the last decade, with four exceptions,30 were actually FBI sting operations—plots conducted with the direct involvement of law enforcement informants or agents, including plots that were proposed or led by informants.

    Today’s terrorism sting operations reflect a significant departure from past practice. When the FBI undercover agent or informant is the only purported link to a real terrorist group, supplies the motive, designs the plot and provides all the weapons, one has to question whether they are combatting terrorism or creating it. Aggrandizing the terrorist threat with these theatrical productions only spreads public fear and divides communities, which doesn’t make anyone safer.34 In many of the sting operations we examined, informants and undercover agents carefully laid out an ideological basis for a proposed terrorist attack, and then provided investigative targets with a range of options and the weapons necessary to carry out the attack. Instead of beginning a sting at the point where the target had expressed an interest in engaging in illegal conduct, many terrorism sting operations that we investigated facilitated or invented the target’s willingness to act before presenting the tangible opportunity to do so. In this way, the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals.


    In these cases, the informants and agents often chose targets who were particularly vulnerable—whether because of mental disability, or because they were indigent and needed money that the government offered them. In some cases—which have been particularly troubling for American Muslim communities—targets were seeking spiritual guidance, and the government informants or agents guided them towards violence. Relevant aspects of these cases are described below.

    In the case of the “Newburgh Four,” for example, a judge said the government “came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles,” and had, in the process, made a terrorist out of a man “whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/17/2018 3:33:22 AM

  • Calling me Uncle Tom is consistent with Naseer saheb's habit of making ad hominem attacks. America has fought many wars on false premises but that does not make an impossible plot plausible. Moreover the very idea that America would attack  iconic buildings in its premier city and kill 3000 of its own citizens and make another attack on its military defense headquarters in its capital city, and yet not be found out for 16 years even though the U.S. has some of the most aggressive investigative journalists and some of the most independent media in the world is just too preposterous to be believed even by conspiracy nuts.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/16/2018 11:44:19 PM

  • "GM sb has stood the test and can be awarded the "Uncle Tom" prize for this century."
    Is he really deserving Uncle Tom prize?
    at least you can give more than that "Tom and Jerry" award 

    By Lol - 10/16/2018 11:21:02 PM

  • That there are so called educated people who believe in miracles in this day even when shown the physical impossibility of what is claimed to have happened is definitely more bizarre than believing that the US government which has waged war  on 70 countries on false pretexts  without declaring war is incapable of creating another false pretext for a war that the American people would have otherwise resisted.

    GM sb has stood the test and can be awarded the "Uncle Tom" prize for this century. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/16/2018 11:10:15 PM

  • Hats Off, CAIR membership includes the full spectrum of American Muslim opinion from the most conservative to the most progressive. Your bellyache about CAIR is passe.
    Tell me which of my views are not progressive. Please be specific.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/16/2018 10:45:03 AM

Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.