America Woman Joined ISIS Wants to Return to the US

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by BevoJoe, Feb 20, 2019.

  1. BevoJoe

    BevoJoe 10,000+ Posts

    Interesting article. Bring her home and imprison/execute her, tell her to take a hike, or let her come back as if nothing ever happened.

    Thoughts?

    Personally, I favor the first option, after collecting intel on names of supporters and members in other countries as well as Syria.

    Link:
    Hoda Muthan: US says it will not readmit Alabama woman who joined Isis
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
  2. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    Once a traitor, always a traitor. Good riddance to bad garbage.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    If as her family says she is a citizen then we have to let her in and allow due process
    But we should not forget Muslims are encouraged to lie .
     
  4. 2003TexasGrad

    2003TexasGrad Son of a Motherless Goat

    Two things. This whole Muslims are encouraged lie thing is just not true. What the Quran says is that if your life is in danger, it is not a sin to lie to protect yourself. I dont care what some "scholar" says.

    Second, this woman should be imprisoned for treason. She was a legal adult when she willingly joined ISIS and she tweeted calls to murder Americans. She should rot in jail for a long time. Saying "Im sorry" isn't good enough.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  5. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Well, "What the Quran says is that if your life is in danger, it is not a sin to lie to protect yourself."
    Don't you think her life is in danger??
    Of course it is and should be. As you mention-treason.
     
  6. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Due process as in a trial and punishment (if found guilty) for treason? That sounds like the right process in a country that values the Rule of Law.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  7. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    She doesn't belong here, she willingly left and gleefully called for Americans to be murdered. So screw her due process.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    SN
    She is definitely evil and does not deserve to be living free in our country
    But she is entitled to due process.
    I just hope the lefties don't try to play the sympathy card.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    You need to do more research.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    This is what I am talking about
    "Hoda Muthana wants to help US deradicalize others, says her family's lawyer @@CAIRFlorida's @HassanShibly
    :rolleyes1:
    Think she would lie to keep her disgusting self out of prison?
    Why would anyone believe her?
     
  11. BevoJoe

    BevoJoe 10,000+ Posts

    This is the key and what she did appears to be treasonous acts. You nailed it!
     
  12. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Okay - give her a fair trial, then hang her.
     
  13. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    Due process. Try her for treason in Alabama.
     
  14. 2003TexasGrad

    2003TexasGrad Son of a Motherless Goat

    Oh you know, I was raised Muslim and have never been to a mosque my entire life where any Imam ever suggested lying is a part of a greater grand Islamic conspiracy to take over the world. Its just not true. That's not to say there arent some extremist "scholars" who agree with you.
     
  15. 2003TexasGrad

    2003TexasGrad Son of a Motherless Goat

    Oh shes ******. No different than a mass shooter claiming they were brainwashed by video games.
     
  16. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    You're lying.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but my initial conclusion is that she isn't entitled to **** - no right to enter the US, no right to a civilian trial or frankly, any trial.

    Her citizenship is in question. She was born in the United States, but her father was a Yemeni diplomat. That complicates the birthright citizenship issue. I think she claims that he stopped being a diplomat a few months before she was born. If that's the case, then why was he in the United States? Depending on the answer to that question, there's certainly room to argue that she is not a citizen.

    It can also be argued that even if she was born a citizen, she loses it by virtue of joining the military force of another country either in any capacity if that country is engaged in hostilities against the U.S. There still has to be an intent to give up her citizenship, but stupidly posting a picture of her US passport and claiming she's going to burn it certainly hurts her case.

    If not a citizen, she can be shot on the battlefield or tried in a military tribunal. We do have some precedent on this. John Walker Lindh (another dumbass American who became a radical Islamist and fought for an enemy) was tried in a US court after being captured while fighting for the Taliban. However, he had a much stronger case. When he joined the Taliban, it wasn't fighting the United States. Furthermore, there was no evidence of an intent to give up his US citizenship - no comments about destroying his passport, etc.

    One side note - this lady advocated for the murder of Americans on Twitter as a propagandist for ISIS. Milo Yiannopolis and Alex Jones are too dangerous for Twitter, but this blood thirsty monster is all good.

    Just something to think about.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    That's what I'm getting at. When she did that, in my mind, she effectively renounced any tenuous claims to US citizenship she ever had. Plus, she has CAIR trying to represent her. That is strike two against her.
     
  19. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    We're obviously reluctant to strip people of their citizenship and should be, so there is some nuance involved. It's a fact-intensive inquiry, but with what we know now, I lean heavily in favor of pulling her citizenship.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2019
  20. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Taqiyya: Deception and Lying in Islam

    Hadith and Sira

    Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad's men after they were "guaranteed" safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

    Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

    Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy." The Quran defines the 'enemy' as "disbelievers" (4:101).

    Sahih Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

    Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.

    From Islamic Law:

    Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression... (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)

    "One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie."
    Notes
    The Hadith makes it clear that Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them or protect themselves. There are several forms:

    Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity. This is a Shiite term: the Sunni counterpart is Muda'rat.

    Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

    Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression.

    Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

    Though not called taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans (known as Hudaibiya) which allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

    Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

    At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed - having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981, Ibn Kathir v.4 p.300).

    Such was the reputation of early Muslims for lying and killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. Consider the fate of the Jadhima. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe, one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam (to avoid just such a demise). However, the others insisted that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were tied up and beheaded by the missionaries - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

    Today's apologists often rationalize Muhammad's murder of his critics at Medina by falsely claiming that they broke a treaty with their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

    Leaders in the Arab world sometimes say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Palestinian leaders routinely tell Westerners about their desire for peace with Israel, even as they whip Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews. Yassir Arafat even referenced "Hudaibiya" - an admission to conning guillible non-Muslims.

    The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well that John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, claimed well after the fact that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

    The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of this was true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Quran puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing taqiyya to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

    The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

    The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject. They take seriously the part of Sharia that says "it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory". The goal being the ascendency of Islam (and Sharia itself) on the American landscape.

    In 2007, CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper published an op-ed with a fabricated story about Muhammad that portrayed him as a forgiving man:There was a lady who threw garbage in the path of the prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn‘t do it. The prophet went to inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended up converting to Islam. So, that‘s how you respond to people who attack you, with forgiveness and with kindness.Hooper is not ignorant, of course, and knew what he was doing. After getting caught, he changed the wording slightly to say that it is a tradition "Muslims are taught," but he continues to promote the story without qualifying it as untrue - thus causing others to unwittingly repeat a lie.

    Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

    In 2013, a scholar at the prestigious al-Azhar university decreed that Muslims may wear the cross in order to deceive Christians into thinking they are friendly. He cited 3:28 which says not to be friends with non-Muslims unless it is a way of "guarding" yourself against them.

    "Hiding faith" can mean deceiving others about Islam in order to make it appear more attractive. For example, a prominent Muslim activist in the United States, Linda Sarsour, bills herself as a "progressive" and says that gays, women and religious minorities need not worry about Sharia being imposed. She even says that money is lent free of charge under Islamic law (more about that here).

    The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people.

    There are a few early Quran verses that seem to encourage truthfulness: 70:32-33, and it bears mentioning that many Muslims are no less honest than anyone else. But, when lying is addressed in the Quran, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - meaning the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

    Still, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.


    Twitter is pretty much a microcosm of progressive angst, identity politics, and denial.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  21. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I pretty much detest Twitter. Always have.
     
  22. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

  23. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Prodigal,
    That is a very comprehensive history. Thank you for taking the time to research.
    Hard to refute.
    The interesting thing to me is how Muslims like to say it is a religion of peace when it seems as though it has gotten and is getting more violent, or less willing to tolerate other religions/cultures.

    Btw that story about the woman throwing garbage in Mohammed 's path is as believable as Jussie's.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I find the fact that so many of them have suddenly popped up wanting to return to their home countries at the same time somewhat alarming
    I am not in the mood to trust them
     
  25. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I wouldn't do what this city is doing, but it isn't as dumb as it sounds either. What they're hoping to do is reintegrate them back into society. That isn't how I'd do it, but the best option (denying them reentry into Sweden) isn't an option, because their national government has chosen not to do that. So jihadis are coming back to Sweden. This city is trying to make the most of a bad situation.

    Sweden is off the rails. They have taken virtue signaling and white guilt beyond their normal levels of stupidity and reached into mental disorder territory.

    We can give her a civilian trial if we want to, but she isn't entitled to one and doesn't deserve one. And if she gets one, she definitely won't be hanged. She'll go to prison for awhile, but she won't get there death penalty.
     
  26. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Her attorneys are showing a birth certificate showing she is a citizen
    so we pay for a trial appeals and prison as well as paying for her terrorist cub
    JoeFan asks a good question. Why are so many terrorist females are trying to get back, with supposedly heart tugging circumstances?
     
  27. BevoJoe

    BevoJoe 10,000+ Posts

    Well laid out set of facts and the issue, Mr. Deez. I agree. By burning her passport, there was a manifestation or indicia of an intent to terminate her American citizenship and might be a stateless person. Couple that with her actions of publically (via twitter/the internet) advocating the murder of Americans, weighs heavily against her contention that she is and American citizen and wants to return to her family.

    So, now she may be, or is considered a traitor by our Government, and subject to imprisonment or execution if she is extradited back to the U.S. to stand trial. The question is, will Syria, where I believe she's staying in a refugee camp, send her back or will they make her disappear into the night and fog. My preference is to bring her here to be tried and when convicted, execute her or sentence her to life in federal prison. There is no parole from Federal prison sentences, so she will die there, if given a life sentence. Also, strip away any and all of her family visitation rights.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2019
  28. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    A birth certificate creates a presumption of citizenship, but it's a rebuttable presumption.
     
  29. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    If not a citizen, then she can be tried in a military tribunal and get the Guantanamo Bay treatment.

    She won't get the death penalty and probably won't get life if tried in a US civilian court. John Walker Lindh got 20 years. She'd likely get something in that range.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Ok Mr D
    You went all lawyer on us
    What is a rebuttal presumption?

    I see many on the left are angered by her too. Maybe this will finally spur forward changing the birthright amendment.
     

Share This Page