[Editor’s note: Below is Robert Spencer's analysis of the recent debate between David Horowitz and Suhail Khan on Hannity -- which Spencer shows successfully smoked out Khan as an Islamic supremacist. See also Frank Gaffney's memorandum for members of the board of directors of the American Conservative Union about Khan. Gaffney has also written previous pieces on Frontpagemag.com exposing Grover Norquist's and Suhail Khan's troubling connections. Paul Sperry has produced a recent Frontpage piece as well: Who is Suhail Khan?]
A sidelight, but a momentous one, of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was the ongoing controversy over the connections of CPAC Board members Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan to the Muslim Brotherhood. David Horowitz detailed many of the troubling connections between Khan and the Brotherhood during his CPAC address; when challenged directly about this, Khan declared flatly: “There is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.” Sean Hannity had both Horowitz and Khan on his radio show Monday for a contentious half-hour of charge and counter-charge that often generated more heat than light; however, when the dust settled it was clear that Khan had not answered many of Horowitz’s most serious charges – and that CPAC, and the conservative movement in general, have a formidable problem in the Islamic supremacists and Islamic supremacist enablers in their midst.
Horowitz began by pointing out that Khan’s stentorian assertion that there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States was mere “hair-splitting.” He pointed out that a captured internal Brotherhood document detailing its strategy for the United States and its goal of “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house” also listed its allied organizations in the U.S. – including the leading Islamic groups in this country, such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA).
One of the founders of the Muslim Students Association was Mahboob Khan, Suhail Khan’s father. ISNA in turn emerged from the MSA, and Mahboob Khan worked with ISNA as well before his sudden death in 1999. Suhail Khan’s mother, Malika Khan, meanwhile, is to this day a Board member of the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), another Brotherhood-linked group that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2007. The Holy Land Foundation was once the largest Islamic charity in the United States; it was shut down, however, after federal agents discovered that it was funneling charitable contributions to the jihad terror group Hamas. Several CAIR officials have been convicted of terror-related activities and are now serving time in prison.
Of course, a son doesn’t necessarily hold the same belief-system as that of his parents, but in this case there is abundant evidence that Suhail Khan does. He has spoken at MSA, ISNA, and CAIR events, and when Horowitz and Hannity asked him Monday to explain why he would do so if he really opposed the Brotherhood and its agenda in the U.S., he temporized and bloviated, saying ultimately that if CAIR really did have any connection to terror, then he would denounce it. Asked then why he hadn’t asked his mother to resign from the CAIR-California Board, he replied that he had done so – but he did not volunteer this information when the fact that his mother was on the CAIR Board first came up, and only did so when cornered.
On the Hannity Show, Suhail Khan hotly denied that a California mosque that his father had founded had hosted a fundraiser for the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman (who is now in prison for his role in plotting the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993), as well as for Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is now the number-two man in Al-Qaeda. While invoking Horowitz’s Communist past, Khan charged Horowitz with making baseless ad hominem attacks that had been repeatedly debunked both by several law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the National Security Agency, and by a considerable number of media outlets. He also challenged the veracity of several other charges Horowitz was able to make when Khan wasn’t talking over him. There were notable aspects of Horowitz’s case, however, that Khan never addressed — although he did his best to hold the floor for as long as he could and allow Horowitz (and Hannity) as little time as possible to challenge his assertions.
Robert's first observation is salient: Khan's insistence that "there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the USA" is a negation of facts amply established in the 'Holy Land Foundation' trial and elsewhere. The front groups clearly exist – CAIR, the MSA, and the ISNA among others – and their policies and views clearly dovetail with those of the MB's. They continue to work tirelessly to "sabotage" our "miserable house"…just as the captured documents read.
Khan's denial is itself a proof of sorts…of his own perfidy and deception. Let's hope David has started something here that will develop an irresistible momentum…and that Khan – and perhaps even his mentor, Grover Norquist, will soon become personna non grata in the conservative fold.
The problem with the debate on Hannity is that if you don't know anything and you listen to it you don't know who is right. For example, during the debate Suheil said certain charges had been debunked and then David Horowitz said that they hadn't. Another problem is Suheil when he defends his father comes across as a loving son defending his father against the charges of the "evil" Mr. Horowitz. I think David Horowitz would do a lot better if there was a video debate where in response to a statement by Suheil in which he denied doing something Mr. Horowitz could say, I have you on video doing this. Another approach would be to have an article with Mr. Khan's statements intermixed with links to video or documents that prove him wrong.
Did you actually read the post by Robert Spencer? Listen to the Hannity clips that he references and all of your comments and questions are answered. Public comments by Khan himself are the most damning. Also, the unfortunate tenet in their religion of the ability and obligation to obfuscate to infidels when speaking with them, is a little troubling. Kind of questions their credibility.
Gamaliel Isaac must be a Bill Clinton fan and agrees with Bill about the imagined ambiguity for the meaning of the word "is" and would forgive OJ Simpson if Simpson claimed his ex wife Nicole came out her front door and tripped and fell on his knife seventeen times.
Listening to suheil's comments about jihad, I can't help but wonder if he's one those moon god (allah) worshippers. Does he seek to emulate the perfect man who invented allah and shat the contents of the most holy terror guide the koran? If so, then that would explain his being a liar, and a sub-human sack of filth, or put more simply, a practicing muslim.
Amen brother!
OBAMA IS AN ISLAMIST SUPREMACIST: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaGe63Aqv4
Everyone should get out and do their own research on Mr. Khan. I did and have come to the conclusion that David is correct in his accusations. I also listened to the Hannity program and was even more convinced when I heard Mr. Khan. David is right and we should all start to wake up! Do the research. The information is there!
The only way to have a debate with haters is with a the use of a mute button. The sooner these supposed news organizations realize that the better. Truth be told it's the idiot with the bigger mouth that usually comes out on top so watching the stupidity only pisses off a normal human being. I mostly watch Fox, but half the time they don't get it. My example, Juan Williams… loves to talk over Charles Krauthammer but never says anything worth a damn. I dare Fox to use a mute button on 2 (or 1) big mouths during a heated debate and use it right from the start. Let's hear a controlled debate where volume doesn't rein but instead facts play an important part.
Khan's statement that the Muslim Brotherhood is not operating in America is all anyone really needs to hear to understand something is definitely not right here. That goes far beyond naivety. Why would he say that? His immediate default to dissimilation when questioned is all I need to know.
I heard the "debate" on Hannity and I was upset with Hannity for being totally unprofessional. He failed to set clear rules and make sure that each side could speak for a specific time with no interruption. David Horowitz was repeatedly interrupted by Khan with little more than feeble admonitions of "one at a time guys" by Hannity. The exchange was confusing, noisy and of limited value. Hannity seemed more like Jerry Springer who is known for encouraging conflict for the sake of entertainment.
Suheil is a good Muslim and therefore like all good Mulslims he practices Al-Taqiyya, the act of lying/deception as per Sharia Law..
You know, the Ayatollah Komeini once pronounced that "there is no fun in Islam". Obviously the late Ayatollah had ever met Mr. Khan. "There is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States." I am LOL until there are TIME (Tears In My Eyes). Next, Suhail Khan is going to tell us that "Islam is a religion of peace"! What a knee slapper!
Mohammeds actions:
Tabari V111: 122/ Ishaq: 515
The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr saying, "Torture him until you root out and extraxt what he has". So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah's chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death.
Core mentality of Mohammed. Check the "Ban Islaam" petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/MYSTIC/petition.htm…
The best thing we can do with Muslims is keep them out of our country. There is no such thing as a moderate muslim – I have never seen muslims demonstrating against the violence that is being perpetrated in the name of their religion. I have only seem them demonstrating violently against cartoons. Lets kick this 7th century cult of stupidity to the curb where it belongs. Seriously, what rational person with two brain cells to rub together could possibly believe the BS this religion spouts.
Keeping Muslims out is possible via the reciprocity factor: Muslims deny Jews entry, so Israel can deny Muslims also. However, this can also cause Israel to be overwhelmed by Muslims if Muslim states agree to recieve Jews in Islamic states. Better that the Jews abide by the factors of her re-established, which defnes Israel as a 'Jewish' state – this means a quote system has to apply which does not invalidate that factor.
Even better is to work against the creation of Jordan: this regime is in violation ofn the only condition of its creation – to house the Arabs of Palestine [The Balfour Mandate]. Jordan's barring of the Arabs is illegal and an act of genocide against Jews. Jordan is no peace partner of Israel!
sad to see white folks bullied with white men’s guilt.
I was very encouraged to find this site. I wanted to thank you for this special read. I definitely savored every little bit of it.
Singapore Company Registration
Israel must open her eyes and see the hidden truth being manifest today. The Islamists are not the problem of the Jews, as they are of Christians. Israel has only been used as a pawn to deflect this truth, but now it is exploding in Europe's face.
Europe kapt silent when Muslims chanted the Jerusalem Jewish temple was a Zionist myth. Christians must wake up: while Jews have survived without their temple, the Islamic lie totally negates the Gospels, which claims one Jesus visited this mythical temple. Sikence to blatant falsehoods has a cost factor.
RiverFred is the only commentator who spoke to the point: taqqiyah, intentional deception practiced virtuously according to Islamic teaching, in order to defeat the enemy and achieve dawa: proselytizing and conversion, or at least acceptance out of ignorance of reality. The life of Mohammed, the Quran, the Sura and the Haddith, as well as Islamic juridical clarification, all commend living the lie for the glory of Allah.
Addendum: Hannity and his cohorts at FoxNews should be wary of allowing taqqiyah and should call the perpetrators of lies on their duplicity – using, as suggested above, the statements of belief and calls to action on record, not ad hominem, emotional retorts. The battle is to inform the non-Muslim world of the truth and reality, not to encourage "fair and balanced" debate. Such a thing cannot exist in dialog with Islam.
Of course there is a brotherhood… that is inevitable when people who are minority come together but that doesn't mean they have evil intentions.
snoring solutions