Khan Deletes Law Firm Website that Specialized in Muslim Immigration...

[ogibillm]

there was no conflict of interest

Stupid statement. He will profit greatly with more immigration, it's what his business revolves around.

No wonder you are a liberal, you can't even add 1 plus 1.

you dont understand what conflict of interest means and you call me stupid?

and there is no reason to believe he would significantly profit or lose money if immigration laws are changed

Here you go, dildo.

Definition of CONFLICT OF INTEREST
a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust

So as a lawyer he has a professional obligation to not use his position for personal gain,

oh wow.

this does remind me to.give to that 'destitute lawyers fund'

since, as you point out, practicing law for money is a conflict of interest.

are you really that dumb?

Except he went well beyond that by using the DNC platform to criticize Trump's policy by using his son's death as the excuse.

Yes, you really are this dumb. DING your fries are ready!

You're right. no lawyer has ever lobbied for anything.

and here's the thing - why shouldn't a man, a muslim immigrant himself, not speak about something he obviously cares about?

this whole 'conflict of interest' b.s. is just that - and you should realize that it is because you had to go so far as to claim that lawyers had an ethical obligation not to make money in order to try to support it.

if you think the supposed financial incentive changes what he said that's your choice. not that it matters, because the impact of khan's speech has not been in what he said but in hiw trump reacted.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Two kids died serving their country. One parent condemns terrorists and a government official who had a say in his protection. The other parents lash out at a person who had nothing to do with his death and hold the terrorists blameless.

Kahn condemned terrorists. That must have slipped by you.

Kahn lashed out at Trumps anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacks - not blaming Trump for his son's death.

He had every right to lash out at rhetoric that is hateful and divisive. He had as much right, as the grieving parent of a child who was killed in the service of his country - a country, that if Trump leads would never have allowed him in the first place, and who considers his service and his family as less worthy of respect. He had as much right to his words and feelings as Patricia Smith did, and for those that try to somehow claim it is different, I'm simply disgusted.

So you think he's going to stand up there and say he supports terrorist?

 

[Coyote]

Two kids died serving their country. One parent condemns terrorists and a government official who had a say in his protection. The other parents lash out at a person who had nothing to do with his death and hold the terrorists blameless.

Kahn condemned terrorists. That must have slipped by you.

Kahn lashed out at Trumps anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacks - not blaming Trump for his son's death.

He had every right to lash out at rhetoric that is hateful and divisive. He had as much right, as the grieving parent of a child who was killed in the service of his country - a country, that if Trump leads would never have allowed him in the first place, and who considers his service and his family as less worthy of respect. He had as much right to his words and feelings as Patricia Smith did, and for those that try to somehow claim it is different, I'm simply disgusted.

So you think he's going to stand up there and say he supports terrorist?

I'm thinking it doesn't matter what he says - he's Muslim so therefore you're going to say he supports terrorists.

 

[Coyote]

"I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said.”

Truly ironic coming from some one who can't seem to grasp what is obviously said. Her interview with Wallace clearly demonstrated that fact.

Checking Patricia Smith's claims about Clinton and Benghazi

So, contrary to what you told me in your thread, you are calling her a liar. If you want to pin someone as a liar, cite a fact checker.

No, I am not.

Answer me this: can a person be wrong without being a liar?

Think about it, and think about memory.

 

[Coyote]

Probably because he was getting threats and harrassment from you guys. It's not enough to criticize him, you have to employ a scortched earth policy and utterly destroy the poor man because your Messiah was critized.. Imagine if the left did that to Patricia Smith.

Khizr Khan Smeared As A Terrorist For Speaking Out Against Donald Trump

Now isn't the most appropriate time for you to be claiming 'Left' doesn't "employ a scorched earth policy" against their political opponents asshole!
Would you like me to start listing the number of 'dirty tricks' and down right illegal acts the DNC have employed?
Khan turned out to be a fucking Islamist terrorist sympathizer and enabled GOD knows how many muslim terrorists and or sympathizers to get into the US.
The FACT the rag head goat fucker took down his website PROVES he is trying to hide himself from close scrutiny.

Where have I claimed the left doesn't do that

Maybe you should learn to read before assuming shit.

Khan turned out to be nothing of the kind, he just has the misfortune to be a Muslim and you hate Muslims.

Why did Khan take down his site?

Khizr Khan Takes Down Website in Wake of Speech Denouncing Trump

Khan stood up to Trump and his bigotry, insulting statements about Muslims, women, hispanics and even members of his own party. I'm sure he's gotten a lot of ugly threats from the Trumpers. It's time people stood up to Trump instead of allowing him to be such a bully.

Khizr Khan: Trump does not have different rights than us - BBC News

Mr Trump has called the speech a "vicious attack", but Mr Khan said the Republican candidate cannot insult Muslims, women and members of his own party and not face criticism himself.

In an interview with the BBC's Jon Sopel, the Khans say it was time to stand up to Mr Trump instead of shying away from "the call of the times".​

 

[Coyote]

And that is EXACTLY what Trump could have done. Treat the man with respect, and disputed him

If I walked up and punched you in the face, what would you do? Treat me with respect?

First off. That did not happen did it?

Compare Trumps reaction to Bush's reaction to Cindy Sheehan.

Enough said.

 

[saveliberty]

Hey, I forgot I helped rich Muslims into the US, funneled "contributions" in the Clinton Foundation for Saudi Arabia, was in the Muslim Brotherhood and my wife should talk more without waiting for me to tell her its okay.

That forgetting?

 

[Coyote]

Interesting....Drumpf makes money, why aren't you calling HIM less patriotic?

Because it is his money, not the American people's. See a difference here?

Khan makes his own money.

 

[Coyote]

Hey, I forgot I helped rich Muslims into the US, funneled "contributions" in the Clinton Foundation for Saudi Arabia, was in the Muslim Brotherhood and my wife should talk more without waiting for me to tell her its okay.

That forgetting?

Forgetting?

There is no evidence to support those claims.

 

[saveliberty]

(BREITBART) Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.
Read more at Khan’s deep ties to Saudis, Clinton Foundation

 

[Coyote]

(BREITBART) Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.
Read more at Khan’s deep ties to Saudis, Clinton Foundation

Khizr Khan Is a Muslim Brotherhood Agent?
No credible evidence supports the assertion that Khan is an operative of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nor is there evidence that he pushes Sharia or is an Islamist.

 

[saveliberty]

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.”

Daily Caller: Khizr Khan Wrote Extensively in Favor of Sharia - Breitbart

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Two kids died serving their country. One parent condemns terrorists and a government official who had a say in his protection. The other parents lash out at a person who had nothing to do with his death and hold the terrorists blameless.

Kahn condemned terrorists. That must have slipped by you.

Kahn lashed out at Trumps anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacks - not blaming Trump for his son's death.

He had every right to lash out at rhetoric that is hateful and divisive. He had as much right, as the grieving parent of a child who was killed in the service of his country - a country, that if Trump leads would never have allowed him in the first place, and who considers his service and his family as less worthy of respect. He had as much right to his words and feelings as Patricia Smith did, and for those that try to somehow claim it is different, I'm simply disgusted.

So you think he's going to stand up there and say he supports terrorist?

I'm thinking it doesn't matter what he says - he's Muslim so therefore you're going to say he supports terrorists.

He sure supports bringing muslims here since he makes his living that way.
You dont see a conflict of interest here and a guy with an axe to grind?
I would also think that the fact that he's a clintoon lacky would make you say hmmmm....

 

[saveliberty]

Two kids died serving their country. One parent condemns terrorists and a government official who had a say in his protection. The other parents lash out at a person who had nothing to do with his death and hold the terrorists blameless.

Kahn condemned terrorists. That must have slipped by you.

Kahn lashed out at Trumps anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacks - not blaming Trump for his son's death.

He had every right to lash out at rhetoric that is hateful and divisive. He had as much right, as the grieving parent of a child who was killed in the service of his country - a country, that if Trump leads would never have allowed him in the first place, and who considers his service and his family as less worthy of respect. He had as much right to his words and feelings as Patricia Smith did, and for those that try to somehow claim it is different, I'm simply disgusted.

So you think he's going to stand up there and say he supports terrorist?

I'm thinking it doesn't matter what he says - he's Muslim so therefore you're going to say he supports terrorists.

He sure supports bringing muslims here since he makes his living that way.
You dont see a conflict of interest here and a guy with an axe to grind?
I would also think that the fact that he's a clintoon lacky would make you say hmmmm....

Not holding my breath for acknowledgement of facts or change in propaganda from Coyote.

 

[Coyote]

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.”

Daily Caller: Khizr Khan Wrote Extensively in Favor of Sharia - Breitbart

Why is the above 1983 article, a scholarly article, in a Journal of International Law, considered to be a an issue? Where is it saying anything "in favor" of Sharia?

 

[Coyote]

Two kids died serving their country. One parent condemns terrorists and a government official who had a say in his protection. The other parents lash out at a person who had nothing to do with his death and hold the terrorists blameless.

Kahn condemned terrorists. That must have slipped by you.

Kahn lashed out at Trumps anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacks - not blaming Trump for his son's death.

He had every right to lash out at rhetoric that is hateful and divisive. He had as much right, as the grieving parent of a child who was killed in the service of his country - a country, that if Trump leads would never have allowed him in the first place, and who considers his service and his family as less worthy of respect. He had as much right to his words and feelings as Patricia Smith did, and for those that try to somehow claim it is different, I'm simply disgusted.

So you think he's going to stand up there and say he supports terrorist?

I'm thinking it doesn't matter what he says - he's Muslim so therefore you're going to say he supports terrorists.

He sure supports bringing muslims here since he makes his living that way.
You dont see a conflict of interest here and a guy with an axe to grind?
I would also think that the fact that he's a clintoon lacky would make you say hmmmm....

Not holding my breath for acknowledgement of facts or change in propaganda from Coyote.

I'm providing facts. Is that a problem for you?

 

[ogibillm]

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.”

Daily Caller: Khizr Khan Wrote Extensively in Favor of Sharia - Breitbart

repeating the same bogus claims does not make them more true

 

[saveliberty]

Kahn condemned terrorists. That must have slipped by you.

Kahn lashed out at Trumps anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacks - not blaming Trump for his son's death.

He had every right to lash out at rhetoric that is hateful and divisive. He had as much right, as the grieving parent of a child who was killed in the service of his country - a country, that if Trump leads would never have allowed him in the first place, and who considers his service and his family as less worthy of respect. He had as much right to his words and feelings as Patricia Smith did, and for those that try to somehow claim it is different, I'm simply disgusted.

So you think he's going to stand up there and say he supports terrorist?

I'm thinking it doesn't matter what he says - he's Muslim so therefore you're going to say he supports terrorists.

He sure supports bringing muslims here since he makes his living that way.
You dont see a conflict of interest here and a guy with an axe to grind?
I would also think that the fact that he's a clintoon lacky would make you say hmmmm....

Not holding my breath for acknowledgement of facts or change in propaganda from Coyote.

I'm providing facts. Is that a problem for you?

BS, you posted nothing but opinion. I on the other hand provided specifics that clearly showed you were in error. Either you have poor reading skills, didn't read the posts carefully or simply like to lie. I am going with the last one.

 

[Clementine]

The reason Khan wants to seed Muslims everywhere is because he wants Islam to rule the world.

The guy has nothing but high praise for a Pakistani minister who touts sharia law as being the only constitution for the world. Brohi believes in brutal punishments for any offense against sharia. He believes that men should retain the right to beat their wives when they don't behave the way they want. Khan supports this man and admires him a great deal. It is no different than a person admiring Hitler. Brohi is all about a world ruled by Islam and the fact that Khan is one of his biggest fans certainly reveals his own mindset.

He is a strange choice for Dems to invite to their convention considering his loyalty to a man who would impose severe penalties or death to women, gays and people who commit the most minor crimes. Either they approve of the man's radical views or they just chose the first Muslim gold parents they could find. Either way, it demonstrates an attempt to sway voters by dishonest means. It's all about appearance instead of substance. It's not unlike Hillary's fake story of a young girl in a wheelchair. I guess she counts on the fact that her supporters will accept anything the Dems put out there as gospel and won't ever question anything the left does. And when those who actually care about the truth do some fact checking, she will just attack them with the help of the liberal media.



"As Pakistani minister of law and religious affairs, Brohi helped create hundreds of jihadi incubators called madrassas and restored Sharia punishments, such as amputations for theft and demands that rape victims produce four male witnesses or face adultery charges. He also made insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad a crime punishable by death. To speed the Islamization of Pakistan, he and Zia issued a law that required judges to consult mullahs on every judicial decision for Sharia compliance.

Khan, who says he immigrated to the U.S. in 1980 to escape Pakistan’s "military rule," nonetheless spoke admiringly of Brohi in his review of his speech. He praised his remarks even though Brohi advocated for the enforcement of the medieval Sharia punishments, known as "hudood" (singular "hadd"), that were later adopted and carried out with brutal efficiency by the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.

"Divinely ordained punishments have to be inflicted," Brohi asserted, "and there is very little option for the judge called upon to impose Hadd, if facts and circumstances are established that the Hadd in question has been transgressed, to refuse to impose the punishment."

Of course, such cruel and unusual Sharia punishments, ranging from stonings and floggings to beheadings, would be a flagrant violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Western society is built on individualism and secularism, concepts enshrined in the Constitution. But Brohi scoffs at them, arguing, "The individual has to be sacrificed. Collectivity has a special sanctity attached to it in Islam."

Brohi goes on to argue that human rights bestowed by Islam include the right of men to "beat" their wives.

"The best statement of the human rights is also to be found in the address delivered by the prophet [Muhammad] so often described as his last address," Brohi said, quoting: " ‘You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity.’ "

In his book review, Khan takes no issue with Brohi’s shocking interpretation of human rights. In fact, he claims Brohi "successfully" explains them and argues his points "convincingly." (The review, which lists Khan as "director" of an Islamic center in Houston, was published in the Texas International Law Journal.)

"The keynote speech of Dr. A.K. Brohi, former Pakistani minister of legal and religious affairs, is a hallmark in this book," Khan writes. "It successfully explains the Islamic concepts of ‘right’ and ‘just’ in comparison to their Christian and Judaic counterparts."

Adds Khan: "Brohi argues convincingly for the establishment of a moral value system before guarantees can be given for any kind of rights. To illustrate the point he notes, ‘There is no such thing as human right in the abstract.’"

In other words, Khan concurs that human rights can only be guaranteed through the establishment of Sharia’s moral and legal code.

Khan provides his own advocacy for Sharia law in a separate academic paper titled "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law," which he also wrote in 1983, while studying in Saudi Arabia.

"The invariable and basic rules of Islamic law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah," Khan writes. "All other juridical works… must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah."

He explains that Sharia is derived from the Quran and Sunnah, and that the Quran "is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation."

Khan then notes that Quranic law includes "constitutional law.""



Khizr Khan Believes the Constitution ‘Must Always Be Subordinated to the Sharia’

Khizr Khan Believes Sharia Trumps the Constitution

 

[Desperado]

Khan is a worthless peice of shit who puts Shari law above the US Constitution! Just another Jihadist that does not belong in the US!