Roger Stone’s Slander of Khizr Khan, Fact-Checked
Fringe right-wing figures are making claims that Khizr Khan is a terrorist sympathizer. Put simply, that’s not true.
Update, 8/4: Some lines have been omitted to reduce the presence of opinion within the piece, and focus on the facts. -PH
Khizr Khan is a Gold Star father who spoke movingly at the DNC convention July 28, condemning Trump in no uncertain terms. Khan’s son Humayun Khan was killed in the Iraq War. Captain Khan died on June 8, 2004 when he approached a suspicious vehicle, which then exploded, killing him but sparing the lives of the hundreds of soldiers in the compound. In his speech, Khizr Khan presented himself as an outspoken critic of Trump’s policies — especially his proposed ban on Muslims. Trump did not take kindly to Khan’s criticisms, tweeting twice that Khan “viciously attacked” him. Subsequently, conservative news outlets have questioned the implications of Khan’s publications on Islamic law as well as his connections as a former lawyer at Hogan Lovells LLP, an international law firm. They have drawn connections to Khan’s writings as far back as the 1980s in an attempt to prove a link between Khan and Islamic extremism.
Their concerns are unfounded and tenuous at best. Such outlets are grasping for straws by slandering the name of a family who has sacrificed their — yes, Muslim — son in the Iraq War — a war against the very Islamic extremism conservative outlets such as Breitbart and Shoebat claim Khan supports.
Investigative reporting has an important role in our society. Responsible journalism that seeks to uncover the truth can hold those in power accountable for their actions. However, Roger Stone and his sources have assumed that Khan’s Muslim faith and his scholarly examination of its tenets point to a dark, insidious conspiracy in which he somehow becomes an agent of Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. Rather than provide accountability, Stone and his colleagues offer shadowy connections that dissipate under scrutiny.
But don’t take our word for it. Let’s explore both Stone’s widely-shared Breitbart article — one that led the Breitbart front page — and his source, Walid Shoebat, and see for yourself if they hold up after closer evaluation of the evidence.
Addressing Roger Stone’s Slander
Here’s the Stone article so you can follow along as we address specific quotes within it:
“Capt. Kahn’s death at the hands of Muslim terrorists twelve years ago was tragic, but Donald Trump bears absolutely no responsibility for that death. That occurred in a war that Mr. Trump actively opposed.”
Trump has flip-flopped on Iraq, originally supporting intervention. This is seen in Fox and CNN broadcasting, so on both sides of the aisle, as well as other credible sources such as Politifact. Regardless of earlier quotes supposedly attempting to condemn John McCain for “being a headline hog,” we see this exact problem as the very crux of Trump’s flaws, and this flip-flopped issue exemplifies his untrustworthiness.
“Mr. Khan asked about Mr. Trump’s “sacrifice” without posing a similar question about Secretary Hillary Clinton — where was HER sacrifice?”
That’s not the point. Clinton does not want to deport Muslims or anything similar to that. One could argue that she has also spent her life in public service sacrificing her time and energy to improve people’s lives. That’s a matter of opinion.
“There are no constitutional issues regarding Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigrants — yet Khan attacks Trump for not reading the Constitution.”
This is technically true under the plenary power doctrine. (There are modern critiques which state that plenary power doctrine neglects natural human rights, chief among those right to life, but judicial precedent still holds it as the status quo as recently as the 1970s.) Khan’s appeal for Trump to read the constitution is also an appeal for Trump to respect the values on which our country was founded, in the view of Mr. Khan: “liberty” and “equal protection of law” among others. A ban on Muslims entering the country is not illegal, but it is a potential contradiction to the principles that informed our First Amendment right to free practice of religion and the idea that everyone in the United States will be treated equally under the law, no matter their race, gender, or creed. While this claim is not necessarily factually untrue, we view the dismissal of any constitutional issues to be disingenuous.
Update, 8/4: Additionally on the issue of constitutionality, Ilya Somin of the Washington Post provides a brief overview of other areas where Trump might potentially be in constitutional conflict:
As Walter Olson points out, Trump has a long history of filing bogus libel suits to try to silence his critics. He recently stated that he wants to “open up the libel laws” to make such lawsuits easier in cases “when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post… writes a hit piece.” It seems clear that he hates to be criticized, and wants to use the law to suppress such criticism as much as possible. His contempt for freedom of speech is also evident in his pining for the “old days” when his supporters could beat up protestors to the point where they “have to be carried out on a stretcher.” Ditto for his desire to have the FCC take some of his critics off the airwaves. It seems likely Trump would try to appoint judges who share his views on libel law (it might be harder to find ones who share his views on beating up protestors). If so, that would be a major threat to First Amendment rights. […] He has long defended the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in Kelo v. City of New London, and the doctrine that the government should be able to condemn property for almost any reason, includingtransferring it to influential private developers, like himself. This doctrine iscontrary to the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and is also problematic from the standpoint of many “living Constitution” theories.
Back to the article —
“Mr. Khan also misrepresented Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslims, which was a response to the Syrian refugee crisis that was created by President Obama and Sec. Clinton’s policies. It has been established that terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda are using the Syrian humanitarian crisis to bring terrorists to the West — risking the lives of innocent people all over the world, including Muslims. Mr. Kahn’s claims to the contrary, nothing proposed by Mr. Trump in his current presidential run affects Kahn or any patriotic American Muslim.”
There are a few problems with this attack on Khan, but let’s start with assigning the blame for the Syrian refugee crisis to the policies of the Obama administration. There is hardly one moment one can point to as the root cause of the Syrian immigration crisis; while it’s very much possible to critique the Obama administration’s response to the crisis, it is also necessary to look to the Western interventions that laid the framework of tension: the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan under the GW Bush administration, and even US-Iranian tensions and the revival of Islamic tensions under Carter. To go even further back, look at the entire shameful legacy of the 1800s, Cecil Rhodes-style colonialism or the harrowing legacy of post-WWII neocolonialism which entrenched the third world in a dogmatic slumber it still hasn’t been able to escape.
Regardless of whose fault this is within the United States and the Western world, the problem with Trump’s proposal is that it entirely disregards the idea that, since the West proliferated the problem, it should bear some of the burden of alleviating it. It’s one thing to disagree with that idea — a fair case could be made that we ought to care about our country first, an argument made by Trump, but to entirely disregard that burden without addressing it neglects the issue. Finally, and perhaps most importantly when discussing a Trump policy proposal, is the disturbingly vague nature surrounding the definition of a “patriotic American Muslim,” as Stone says. Carrying a similarity with McCarthy’s tactics surrounding Communists, a Muslim registry proposed by Trump would also affect all Muslims in the country by creating a clear stigma against any member of that religion; in effect, it would say you and your kind are so dangerous that we have to have a list of who you are and where you live to keep an eye on you. It brings us to the precipice of a very dangerous slippery slope. After all, following the logic of “potential danger”, why don’t we have a registry of white males instead? They’re the biggest terrorist threat.
“The President has full legal authority to block any group or person from entering the country for whatever time period he see fit [sic]. The immigrants wishing to come here are not U.S. Citizens and have no U.S. Constitutional rights. There are no constitutional issues regarding Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigrants — yet Khan attacks Trump for not reading the Constitution.”
Khan rightfully attacks Trump for not reading the Constitution. His lack of knowledge of (or willful disregard for) its tenets is disturbing. He has embraced waterboarding, a type of torture explicitly unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. (“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”) Given that torture is illegal, the military is obligated to refuse to carry out torture even if [told to] by its commander-in-chief. Asked about this potential snafu, Trump replied, “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse, believe me.” If Trump read the Constitution, he would realize his powers as President would be limited by a system of checks and balances to ensure he wouldn’t hold unlimited power. For all his love of publicity, he has shown a love of revoking press credentials from anyone who prints negative things about him, such as a few writers from the Washington Post.
“Despite his reverence for the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Khan has not questioned the constitutionality of the Iraq War — which Hillary supported and his son died in.”
Controversy over Iraq War centers over the legality of the war under the UN Security Council resolutions that resolved the 1991 Gulf War, not the constitutionality of the war itself. In fact, Congress passed “The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” on October 16, 2002, which — shockingly — provided the President with the authority to exercise his constitutional power of commanding the armed forces in military action. Under the Constitution, Congress declares war and the President leads our military through it. Congress hasn’t officially declared war since World War II and has instead relied on authorizations of military force which grant the President authority to carry out military action in an armed conflict such as the Iraq War.
The Bottom Line
Perhaps Stone could do with the pocket Constitutions that Khizr Khan and Paul Ryan both carry?
The Source: Walid and Ted Shoebat
Roger Stone obtained these ridiculous claims from a source well-known to some on the fringe of the right wing: Walid and Ted Shoebat. Here’s The Daily Beast’s Katie Zavadski describing the duo perfectly:
It’s also the product of the fevered imagination of Theodore “Shoebat,” the pseudonymous conspiracy theorist and Islamophobe who has made a career of spreading nonsense. That is, when he’s not calling himself a “proud fascist.” His dad and fellow conspiracy-monger, Walid, isn’t much better. He swears that Zika is a punishment from God, and likens homosexuality to cannibalism.
The most horrifying points in the Shoebat article revolve around his goal of undermining the credibility of Khan and others related to the DNC, such as Hillary Clinton’s assistant, Huma Abedin, almost entirely based upon lack of context and fear of all things Islamic. Let’s unpack exactly what Shoebat does so we can view these people through a less-biased lens.
As before, here’s the link to the original article so you can follow along.
“An interest lawyer for Islamic oil companies Khan wrote a paper, called In Defense of OPEC to defend the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries.”
This paper is supposed to be defending OPEC yet they link a classification of Islamic Law.
“…expressing his reverence for “The Sunnah [the works of Muhammad] — authentic tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).””
Not sure how this translates to reverence for Sharia; perhaps they are confused by the use of “authentic” and “(Peace be upon him)” in close proximity. The (Peace be upon him) that follows “Prophet Muhammad” is a complimentary phrase that follows the name of Islamic prophets in writing that expresses respect and honor. As a devout Muslim, it is unsurprising that Khan would follow that practice. The Sunnah is the written record of Muhammad’s “specific words, habits, practices”. It is, as Khan says, the “authentic tradition” of Muhammad. Nothing more, nothing less.
“But more than this, Khan is a promoter of Islamic Sharia Law in the U.S. He was a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (Islamic Sharia).”
He’s a scholar, that doesn’t mean he’s actively endorsing Sharia for the law code. Like we saw him say in his DNC speech, this is a different nation and culture than his old culture. “We are blessed to raise our three sons in a nation where they were free to be themselves and follow their dreams.”
Also, someone reviewing the history of Christianity in the US could, in the same way, reference the Westboro Baptist Church — that doesn’t mean they’re advocating all Christians take those stances, it’s just part of the history. Would we criticize scholars of World War II Germany of being Nazis?
Also, it’s important to note that S. Ramadan had ties to the CIA back then, and was aided by the US government. If we’re going to Lambast Khan for a link with him, then we should lambast anyone affiliated with the United States government at that same time as a “terrorist sympathizer.”
At the time, Ramadan held significant influence over Islam in the region and was tapped as an expert by the govt. While we can’t plausibly deny that he was a bad guy, he was the status quo that scholars like Khan were forced to accept in order to progress forward — acknowledge it and move along.
“In the same writing, Khan promotes Muslims to use Al-Muwatta, the oldest book on Islamic Sharia law, written by Muwatta Imam Malik. He says that it should be used “to bring about legal uniformity in the Muslim nation”:
Khan never says Al-Muwatta “should be used” for anything. In the paragraph in question, he’s not describing his attitude towards Al-Muwatta but rather Al-Rashid’s. Malik wrote the book; Al-Rashid was the caliph who wanted it to become the single legal code in the Islamic state. Writing about others’ opinions does not constitute an endorsement of those opinions. In fact, Khan writes that Al-Rashid goes “so far as to suggest” that Al-Muwatta should be used “to bring about legal uniformity in the Muslim nation.” “So far as to suggest” is an expression of disbelief: he’s saying that Al-Rashid was making a stretch. Shoebat should have recognized the use of that phrase and its implications as he uses it in several articles himself (while offering us a chance to read what else he’s written):
- “While there are prostitutes in every society, the Western woman has herself become a prostitute, placing her value in her physical and sexual qualities which denying the higher qualities, going so far as to even mock them and her biological role as child bearer, mother, and caretaker of the heart of society.”
- “To add insult onto injury [sic], he goes so far as to elevate himself greater than the Fathers, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine by stating:
“St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.”” - “To add insult onto injury [sic], Luther also goes so far as to attack both the Holy Prophets and the Holy Apostles.”
- “He even goes so far as to claim that a Muslim ruler (a Turkish ruler) is better than a Christian ruler: “A smart Turk makes a better ruler than a dumb Christian” (Ibid.)”
- I would go so far as to say that Muslims are some of the most zealous protestants, because they tried to conquer Rome numerous times, and managed to even sack Rome, and till this day they are bent on overtaking this holy city wherein lie the people, “called to be saints.” (Romans 1:7)”
In fact, Khan praises Malik for saying that his book should not become the uniform law across the caliphate; the incident is an example of the “probity”, or honesty and integrity, of some early Muslim judicial experts. Khan was praising diversity of thought in Muslim law, not [uniformity].
“Firstly, it is obvious that Khan instructs Muslims to submit to Sharia “they [Muslims] must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah”:”
Hilariously enough, Shoebat got the antecedent wrong. The full quote is: “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.”
Shoebat either has an intent to mislead readers or selective blindness. The quote clearly states that it’s not Muslims who are subordinated to Shari-ah law but rather other codices of Muslim law. He’s saying that Shari-ah is the set of laws to consider first and foremost.
“Khan’s argument about Sharia is that nothing should have changed regarding Sharia from the inception of Islam and that it has no room for adjustment no “right” to have “new source of legislation”. “The Sunnah [Muhammad’s sayings]” according to Khan’s quoting from Islamic history that when it comes to Sharia law, a Muslim needs to use the Quran and Sunnah to conclude it is complete as “it is finished”. He states “it vividly demonstrates that the structure of Islamic law–the Shari’ah–was completed during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, in the Quran and the Sunnah“.”
Khan’s argument is that the most legitimate sources of Sharia law are the Sunnah and the Quran, which were completed during Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime. Additions and extensions to Sharia law were matters of opinion rather than text handed down from the founder of Islam himself. As the paper is a classification of Islamic law, he is making the distinction between the Islamic law that creates the most legitimate foundation of Sharia law versus the less legitimate sources of law. Much the way Bible Fundamentalists look to the literal text of the Bible to determine how best to follow God’s will and declare the Bible the most legitimate way to discover how to live the best life over self-help books, motivational speeches, or the authority of laymen. The secondary sources are less significant than the primary sources in both religions.
Quote: “Even more troubling, Khan recommends Muslims to use Al-Wathaiq Al-Siyasiyah (Political Documents, see snippet in Sources #2 below) regarding “Islam and politics” by Dr. M. Hamidullah which records 250 documents that includes Jihad in Islam amongst all other things that pertains to fundamental Shariah from an Islamist point of view.”
Shoebat is not big on reading entire sentences, it seems. Khan cites Al-Wathaiq Al-Styasiyah as an example of a compilation of the Sunnah. It is the fifth example in a list of five sources of early writings that contained the Sunnah. That list is just a list of examples; how Shoebat interprets such a list as a recommendation for Muslims is nonsensical and intentionally misleading. It’s as absurd as if I said “Here are five examples of chocolate: Kit Kats, Hershey’s, M&Ms, Snickers, and Three Musketeers” and Shoebat interpreted that sentence as “RealPolitics contributors recommend readers subsist on a diet of only M&M’s, encouraging unhealthy eating and gluttony.”
“Yet the modernists and homosexuals continue to attack Christians.”
Yet people like Walid and Ted Shoebat continue to make baseless claims.
“Khan needs further study and analysis to see how his connect with Hillary Clinton’s campaign since he serves the interest of Muslim oil companies as well as Muslim immigration into the U.S. Intelius reveals Khizr M. Khan used to work for Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, which has ties to the Clinton Foundation:
“Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign”
“Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber. Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues”
To be clear: by law, Robert Kyle would not have legally been allowed to donate $50,850 to Clinton’s campaign. Instead, he gathered donations from like-minded friends and family and presented those donations in a single “bundle” to Clinton’s campaign. The donations that make up the $50,850 may have been from Hogan Lovells LLP, but not necessarily.
However, let’s give Shoebat the benefit of the doubt and assume the $50,850 was a bundle of contributions from Hogan Lovells LLP donors. Hogan Lovells LLP does have a Political Action Committee (PAC) which donates money to campaigns and political parties. In 2016, Hogan Lovells PAC has spent $39,000 on House Republicans and $21,000 on House Democrats this year as well as $25,000 on Senate Republicans and $20,500 on Senate Democrats. The roughly equal spending on every partisan group in Congress looks like a firm trying to hedge its bets rather than a particular, devoted preference to any particular group.
Far more contributions come from individuals who work for Hogan Lovells; under campaign finance law, campaigns must request and make publically available the employer of the donor. In 2016, both the Hogan Lovells PAC and employees of the firm donated $129,293 to Clinton, but also $11,687 to Marco Rubio, $17,700 to Jeb Bush, $7,226 to Ted Cruz, and $9,800 to John Kasich. In 2012, they donated $163,913 to Barack Obama but also $77,492 to Mitt Romney.
An individual donation points more towards personal preference for a candidate than company policy. Employees of the company have a history of supporting Democratic candidates for president, which makes support of Clinton par for the course rather than a signal of conspiratorial ties to a single client — one of many the firm represents.
This election cycle, lobbyist Robert Kyle represents a hardwood floors manufacturer (Armstrong World Industries), a potassium chloride producer (Intrepid Potash), a Houston-based oil and gas company (Occidental Petroleum), and two international investment firms (TPG Capital and Nuveen).
Hogan Lovells LLP does represent Saudi Arabia as a legal advisor. In its repertoire of foreign government, the firm includes the Government of Japan and the Government of Sweden. Other clients of Hogan Lovells include Northwestern University, the City and County of Denver, the Bowl Championship Series, and Nissan North America.
“In regards to his son and his sacrifice, on the other side of the coin, many were the ‘Muslim martyrs’ who joined the US military. Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed, for example, enlisted in the Special Forces of the US Army; he was a double agent for Al-Qaeda. How about Hasan K. Akbar, a Muslim American soldier who murdered and injured fifteen soldiers. There was Bowe Bergdahl, an American Muslim soldier who deserted his men to join the Taliban, a desertion which led to six American being ambushed and killed while they were on the search looking for him.”
While through this fact-check we have tried to maintain objectivity, it is hard to not cringe at this statement; this is openly inferring that, since this man is Muslim, that his heroism must be inherently for a terrorist cause.
The Bottom Line
Shoebat’s article is a hit piece intended to mislead and misdirect readers who have neither the time nor the inclination to follow up on his claims, as we have done. Just because there could be bad work within a system does not inherently make anybody who has ever been involved with the system’s perimeter (because he wasn’t on the inside) evil. These kind of slants blur the lines for readers and unfairly influence their opinions and, worse, proliferate bigotry against followers of the Muslim faith.
While discourse makes us stronger, discrimination builds walls which interrupt our communication and entrench our nation’s divisions. The subjugation of an entire ethnicity and heritage to bigotry that runs as deep as assuming that anyone from Middle Eastern cultural norms is guilty before they are proven innocent isn’t only harmful, it’s forgetful of the basic rights of people like Khan. As has been said on both sides of the aisle, the Khans are as American as anybody, and it is our duty to allow facts instead of hearsay and fear-mongering to rule our discussion of their role. Even examining the cherry-picked quotes of these authors, we find that the claims are entirely baseless and without merit.
Worse, they work to craft a narrative that implores Republican voters to reject the message of Mr. Khan solely based on negative feelings towards him. Rather than assisting their candidate in facing off against Secretary Clinton on the issues, a debate we at RealPolitics encourage and support, hatchet men like Roger Stone work to poison the political discourse with conspiracy theories, racist epithets, and outright lies.
Liberal commentator Cenk Uygur perhaps put it best:
“They love it. Roger Stone links to it, and you see it on Facebook somewhere, and you go, ‘I heard he was in the Muslim Brotherhood’ because he once went to Saudi Arabia!’ Don’t believe the hype.”
If the Trump campaign stands for truth, they should stand against Roger Stone and condemn him for this baseless attack.
If they stand for lies, they can stay right where they are.
