Why Is A US Judge So Shocked That A Practicing Muslim Would Break Their "Oath To God"?

A federal judge has just sentenced a 58-year-old Pakistani-born Chicago taxi driver to 7 ½ years in prison for attempting to send money to a terrorist with links to al-Qaida.

What drew my interest in this story was the fact that the sentencing judge was so shocked that a practicing Muslim would break their "oath to God" i.e.  the citizenship oath made to God promising never to do harm to the United States.

"A federal judge sentenced a Pakistani-born Chicago taxi driver Friday to 7 ½ years in prison for attempting to send money to a terrorist with alleged links to al-Qaida, telling the 58-year-old he had violated a citizenship oath made to God promising never to do harm to the United States. [...] 

Khan pleaded guilty in February to one count of attempting to provide material support to terrorism. His plea agreement recommended a relatively lenient five- to eight-year sentence – well short of the 15-year maximum – in a concession for Khan's willingness to cooperate with authorities.

Judge James Zagel mostly struck a calm, professorial tone in his remarks before imposing a sentence. But he grew angry as he began talking about the oath Khan took when he became a U.S. citizen in 1988, the grizzled judge noting he had administered that oath himself hundreds of times.

"He raised his hand and swore to God he would not act against this country's interests," Judge Zagel said about Khan. That he had violated that oath, Zagel said, was a "profoundly aggravating factor." 

Most people who have grown up in societies largely influenced by Christianity, Hinduism or numerous other faiths, wrongly assume that no world-religion could possibly advocate lying or braking oaths. As with other issues, Islam is the exception to the rule.

Islam permits lying if it will further the cause of Islam

I detest the way critics like to slap silly and constrictive labels on Islamic beliefs. Yes, Islam permits lying if it will further the cause of Islam, but calling it "Taqiyya" or any of the other stupid names they have found is inaccurate and only gives apologists "wiggle room".

Technically, Taqiyya is a Shi'ite practice used by them to literally save their skin from Sunni Jihadis, but what critics generally refer to as Taqiyya is more accurately and more simply referred to as "lying for Islam". No exotic-sounding Arabic name needed.

From WikiIslam (visit original page for references):

"Islam is the only world religion which allows, encourages, and even demands lying by its followers. Lying for Islam is generally referred to as Taqiyya (تقي). Many Muslims will claim that this is not an Islamic, but a Shi'ite practice. Unfortunately, this is a lie. 

There are many verses in the Qur'an which condone lying and deception, and several classical and contemporary Sunni scholars have validated its place within main-stream Islam. In the inquisition miḥna during the Caliphate of al-Ma’mun, a number of Sunni scholars used taqiyya, attesting to the Qur’an as having been created despite believing the opposite.

Given these facts, some will go on to attack the strict definition of Taqiyya and claim that it is “only allowed to save one's own life” or that its "restricted to its use in war". Again, these statements are false. In sahih (authentic) hadith, Muhammad admits to being a liar and advises its acceptable for Muslims to do likewise, allowing his followers to use deception to silence critics. 

One of the 99 "holy names" of the Islamic deity is Al-Makir (the Deceiver), and in the Qur'an Allah refers to himself as the 'best deceiver', and admits to deceiving Muslims and creating Christianity through deception.

With all things considered, the simple fact is Islamic teachings as a whole breed dishonesty like no other religion and even elevates it to a holy status."

Muhammad himself (the "Uswa Hasana") allowed Muslims to lie and kill in order to silence critics. For example, he permitted a Muslim to lie in order to kill a Jewish poet who wrote an anti-Muslim poem that offended him:

"Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). " The Prophet said, "You may say it." [...] So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka'b replied. "I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."  [Sahih Bukhari 5:59:369]

Islam permits the expiation of oaths if it is "better"

The Qur'an tells us that Allah will not call Muslims to account for what is "futile in their oaths", and deliberately breaking oaths is not much of a problem because they will be forgiven if they fast for three days:

"Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." [Qur'an 5:89]

In the Sahih Hadith we find multiple narrations telling us Muhammad had said if he took an oath and later found something else better than that, he would do "what is better" and expiate his oath.

He is basically admitting to being a liar when it suits him, and he actually encourages Muslims to lie by saying it's acceptable for Muslims to do likewise:

"[...] So we returned to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.' He said, 'It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' " [Sahih Bukhari 7:67:427]

"Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Samura: The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better." [Sahih Bukhari 9:89:260]

There are many more similar authentic narration to be found (see here). And as this site points out,  "Since determining what is 'better' is a very subjective evaluation, then one can break any agreement with anyone else at any time he/she chooses to do so just based on one's perception of what is 'better'"

US Lawmakers call Pakistan 'Terrorist State', 'Schizophrenic Ally'

From The Times of India:

A key US Senate panel has voted to impose pointed and punitive cut in aid dollars to Pakistan for its continued support to state-engineered extremism, although the country described bluntly by one lawmaker as a "terrorist state" will still get at least $ 1 billion in American taxpayer money for 2013.

Angered by a Pakistani court's sentencing of a doctor who helped the US nail Osama bin Laden to 33 years in prison (for high treason), the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday voted for a symbolic but token $ 33 million cut in aid -- a million for each year of the sentence.

The cut came on top of the panel voting to withhold nearly a billion dollars in proposed assistance subject to Pakistan re-opening Nato supply routes, although it still left more than $ 1 billion on the table for a country that has publicly castigated the US for killing a universally reviled terrorist. Further reductions have been threatened if Pakistan does not change course.

The Senate action reflected growing American anger over issues ranging from the Nato supply route stand-off to the sentencing of Dr Shakil Afridi, all of which, some US lawmakers suggest, show that Pakistan is in league with terrorists rather than with the United States.

"We need Pakistan, Pakistan needs us, but we don't need Pakistan double-dealing and not seeing the justice in bringing Osama bin Laden to an end," Lindsey Graham, a Senate Republican who pushed for the additional cut in aid said, while calling Pakistan a "schizophrenic ally."

Lawmakers on the House side have been less kind. Following the sentencing by Pakistan's pro-jihadi courts of Dr Afridi, who helped the US locate bin Laden, California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said "This is decisive proof Pakistan sees itself as being at war with us."

"There is no shared interest against Islamic terrorism," Rohrabacher maintained in a statement, contesting the bromide periodically advanced by the administration that Islamabad is an ally in the war on terror. "Pakistan was and remains a terrorist state."

These and other remarks by US lawmakers suggest that many of them, including Rohrabacher, who supported Pakistan for more than two decades despite its track record of rampant nuclear proliferation and sponsorship of terrorism, have turned against the country, although even now the administration and its supporters advance the idea that Pakistan is better treated as an ally rather than as an adversary.

"It's Alice in Wonderland at best," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat who heads the appropriations sub-committee which voted to size down and make conditional some of the aid to Pakistan. "If this is cooperation, I'd hate like hell to see opposition." The United States, Leahy added, is "not going to invest in a country that won't help us in a reasonable way to deal with threats to our forces in Afghanistan."

Meanwhile, Washington and Islamabad clashed over the sentencing of sentencing of Dr Afridi, even as the matter became a political issue in the US election season with some Republicans accusing the administration of throwing him under the bus by publicly revealing his identity and his cooperation even before he could be rescued from Pakistan.

On Thursday, secretary of state Hillary Clinton waded into the issue, demanding that Dr Afridi be released, because "his help was instrumental in taking down one of the world's most notorious murderers that was clearly in Pakistan's interest as well as ours and the rest of the world." The Pakistani foreign office fired back, saying the US needed to respect Pakistan's legal processes and judgments. Congressman Rohrabacher meanwhile is pushing for legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal and a US citizenship for Dr Afridi.

"Secretary Clinton will have to do more than voice protests over the Afridi case. Both the Departments of State and Defense need to take punitive actions against Pakistan. Carrots are not enough when dealing with an adversary. Sticks are needed to prove we are serious," Rohrabacher said.

The lawmaker also contested arguments from advocates of aid to Pakistan that the US should draw a distinction between the civilian government and the military-intelligence cabal who are supporting terrorist groups, saying President Zardari's behavior at the NATO summit in Chicago indicates that he is either in league with the military or under their domination.

"Any money that goes to Islamabad will continue to end up in the pockets of people actively and deadly hostile to America," he said. "The Taliban is only the tip of the spear, the real enemy is Pakistan."

Serge Daniel: Western Countries are to Blame for Financing Al Qaeda in Africa with Ransom Money

This is very shameful of Western countries. In essence they are sacrificing the lives of countless, apparently insignificant, "others" in order to save one of their own.

From ANSAmed:

Several Western countries are to blame if Al Qaida in Islamic Maghreb not only extended its activities all over the Sahel, but also cast its sinister shadow on several other countries in Western Africa; indeed, Western countries decided to pay the ransom for their fellow countrymen and women who had been either directly kidnapped by Al Qaida or given to the Jihadist group by other groups. This is what Serge Daniel maintains in the book he wrote on this characteristic of Al Qaida in Islamic Maghreb, whose title is "AQIM, the kidnapping industry", a sort of Bible for those who try to clear out the mystery surrounding this blood-thirsty and very determined group and its activities of.

In an interview on the site Maliweb, Serge Daniel talked about some elements which, in his own opinion, are objective and cannot be questioned. Western countries are ready to pay several millions of dollars or Euros for the release of their fellow countrymen and women whose kidnapping is managed by AQIM. The analyst provides a long and detailed list of paid ransoms, there are also some "voids" which may raise suspicions. According to Daniel, in recent years money from Spain (between EUR 8 and 9 mln), Canada ("some millions"), Austria (between EUR 2.5 and 3.5 mln), Germany (five millions) has flowed in AQIM's cash. Italy is included in the list too: according to the expert, Italy paid EUR 3 mln for the release of its hostages. Switzerland's position is quite peculiar: although it was the only country which did not provide exact figures, Daniel labels Switzerland as "very generous with kidnappers".

A huge amount of money has circulated for all these years, although individual States have officially denied allegations and suspicions of having paid the ransom, they have actually created a way to negotiate with dangerous individuals, departing from the international principle which says "do not negotiate with terrorists". But what has Al Qaida in Maghreb done and continues to do with the money? It funds its complex organisation structure, it buys weapons and equips the men it chooses to populate its ranks. We are talking about actual hiring, because it is hard to think that all militiamen are driven by a religious motivation; it is far more likely that they are "mainly and simply" attracted by money. Daniel does not write about this in his book, he just mentions an episode: among Jihadists entering Timbuktu there were some young men from his own Mali city who had moved to Libya to work. It was just found out that the money they used to send home were directly taken form the cash of one of Al Qaida's Katibats (brigades) in Maghreb.

Assimilated Moderate Muslim Nightclub Owners?

At first glance, they are a perfect example of US Muslims who have managed to integrate into non-Muslim society. They are successful businessmen owning multiple nightclubs selling alcohol, and, just like many of the Muslims in the UK who belong to pedophile rings that prey on non-Muslim children, they even have Western nicknames. But scratch beyond the surface and you find links to drug dealing, murder, sexual assault, and financial support for Islamic terrorist groups. And just in case you assume drug dealing could never be motivated by faith in Islam, you'd be wrong.

From the American-Statesman:

Drug deals. Weapons purchases. Ties to a prison gang and a militant Islamic group and even a potential link to an unsolved homicide.

That was the list of allegations federal officials laid out against an Austin nightclub owner and nine of his associates in a dramatic hearing Tuesday.

Arrested last week on money laundering and drug charges, Yassine Enterprises owner Hussein Ali "Mike" Yassine, his brother, Mohammed Ali "Steve" Yassine, and eight others appeared in federal court and heard more details about the cases against them.

Mike Yassine, who owns eight Austin nightclubs, and the other suspects in the case face a variety of charges. Some are accused of cocaine distribution, purchases of guns to be used during drug deals and money laundering dating back to 2007.

Officials linked one suspect to the Texas Syndicate prison gang. They also said thousands of dollars were transferred to a Yassine relative in Lebanon who is reportedly connected to the militant group Hezbollah, considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

Prosecutors for the first time also revealed that Mike Yassine is a "person of interest" in a case being investigated by the Austin Police Department's homicide cold case unit. Austin police declined to provide additional details Tuesday, including the name of the alleged victim.

Mike Yassine might have also threatened witnesses, officials said, and is being investigated as part of a sexual assault case.

Judge Dennis Green denied bail for Mike Yassine and Steve Yassine. Bail for four others — including a third Yassine brother, Hadi Ali Yassine — ranged from $10,000 to $25,000. Bail rulings for the other suspects will be made at a later date, officials said.

Outside the courtroom on Tuesday, their father, Ali Yassine, said his sons are not guilty of the charges against them. "My boys ... everybody's innocent," he said. "They're very good boys."

Also charged in the case are Marisse Marthe "Madi" Ruales, Karim Faiq, Alejandro "Cueta" Melendrez, Edgar Orsini, Nizar "Nino" Hakiki, Amar Thabet Araf and Sami Derder, all Central Texas residents who authorities say have various levels of involvement with the purported crimes.

During raids on the suspects' homes and businesses last week, investigators said they seized more than 400 boxes of evidence.

They also report finding $200,000 in cash in a safe at the Yassine Enterprises offices on West Fourth Street, as well as cashier's checks totaling $45,000 made out to a member of the Yassine family in Lebanon. That man is associated with Hezbollah, IRS agent James Neff testified.

The searches also turned up a bogus University of Texas diploma with Mike Yassine's name, prosecutors said.

The American-Statesman has learned that businesses linked to Mike Yassine currently owe almost $600,000 in state sales and mixed-beverage taxes. His bank accounts have been frozen by the state comptroller's office, his attorney said in court.

Yassine Enterprises, owns eight Austin bars: Pure, Spill, Kiss & Fly, Treasure Island, Hyde, Fuel, Malaia and Roial. They've remained closed since last week's arrests and, officials said, will likely remain that way for the foreseeable future after the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission obtained a court order that blocks all eight nightclubs from selling or serving alcohol.

Mike Yassine is also part owner of Stack Burger Bar, which is still open for business. Its liquor license remains intact, according to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

Randel Gillette, an agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, testified Tuesday that an informant who worked for the FBI became involved with the Yassines and their associates in 2007.

Investigators testified that Mike Yassine told the informant, who posed as a drug dealer — and whose accounts have driven much of the case — that he wanted to launder $200,000 to $1 million in narcotics money through his clubs. The informant's name was not released.

Initially, Mike Yassine and Steve Yassine cut the informant checks from Yassine Enterprises for the drugs, but Mike Yassine later wanted the informant to pose as a cleaning service instead to appear more legitimate, investigators said.

The government's evidence against the suspects, Gillette said, includes numerous recorded conversations, videos and surveillance of Steve Yassine and the informant arranging drug transactions, gun purchases and various other illegal activities.

"Steve was very interested in gaining profit from the drug trade," Gillette said. "He seemed very eager to get involved with that."

Steve Yassine first bought 30 grams of marijuana from the informant in late 2007, Gillette said.

The two also tried to buy cocaine from Orsini, a proposition that made the informant nervous because he did not know the man, Gillette said. He said the informant claimed he would disappear if anything went wrong during the deal.

"Steve responded, ‘If that happens, I'll make (Orsini) disappear,' " Gillette said.

Steve Yassine, a legal permanent U.S. resident originally from Lebanon, has not filed a tax return in four years, Gillette said. His income came from doing work for his brother Mike Yassine. He also falsified loan documents on which he said he was a citizen, Gillette said.

Steve Yassine's defense attorney Stephen Orr questioned the charges, saying his client was led on by the FBI informant.

"Every single act he is accused of was initiated by your source," Orr said.

He also asked why his client was not arrested sooner.

"If he's such a dangerous criminal, why not get him off the streets in 2008?" Orr said.

Attorneys for several other defendants, including Mike Yassine, made similar arguments, but Gillette said making the arrests earlier would have jeopardized the investigation.

Neff, the IRS agent, testified that middle brother Hadi Yassine was present during conversations between the informant and his brothers. Hadi Yassine was starting a beverage company called Famous Vodka for which Mike Yassine gave him $100,000 in drug money, Neff said. Hadi Yassine is not a U.S. citizen, Neff said.

Neff testified that Ruales was employed in Yassine Enterprises' corporate office. She had an on-again, off-again romantic relationship with Mike Yassine, Neff said.

Neff said Ruales would cut checks from the company to the informant as payment for drug purchases.

"The cash brought in by the confidential source was being laundered through Yassine Enterprises," Neff said.

When arrested, she said that "all she did was take orders from Mike Yassine," Neff said, although investigators reportedly have video evidence that shows Ruales knew what was going on. She hasn't reported any income from Yassine Enterprises in at least a decade, according to the IRS.

Neff said that when the company's "do-everything guy," Rommel Gomez, faced domestic violence charges, Ruales, on behalf of Mike Yassine, offered Gomez's wife as much as $250,000 to drop the charges — an act that investigators called witness tampering.

Gomez is in custody in Williamson County on unrelated charges, officials said.

Recordings show that the informant, Hakiki and Steve Yassine were involved in purchasing large amounts of narcotics, Gillette said. Steve Yassine introduced the informant to Hakiki because the informant said he wanted to buy a gun to protect himself. He told the informant that Hakiki previously sold him some hashish and would also sell guns, Gillette said.

The informant purchased a .22-caliber pistol and later a 9 mm Taurus handgun from Hakiki, and transactions were made at Steve Yassine's office and home, Gillette said.

Gillette testified that the informant met Melendrez, who goes by "Alex" or "Cueta," at a Yassine nightclub. The informant purchased cocaine from Melendrez there, and during the transaction, Melendrez put some of the drug on his finger, shoved it in the informant's mouth and said, "If you snitch on me, I'll kill you and your family," Gillette said.

Gillette said Melendrez "has history" with the Texas Syndicate prison gang. During the hearing, Melendrez stood up and told the judge he was not a member of the gang, which has been linked to murders and drug trafficking.