Miami Taliban Imam’s Son Damning Wiretaps ‘A Misinterpretation of Language’
Andrew G. Bostom|American Thinker
According to the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida indictment of Imam Hafiz Muhammad Sher Ali Khan, law enforcement agents recorded a series of phone calls in 2009 and 2010 during which the elder Khan — between numerous transfers of money for the Taliban — called for an attack on the Pakistani Assembly. It was to be patterned after the September 2008 bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, which killed 52 while wounding more than 250. Khan further advocated for the overall destruction of the Pakistani government through violent revolution, citing Iran as precedent; expressed his desire to see full implementation of the totalitarian Sharia (governance by Islamic Law, alone) in Pakistan; and, after hearing about a deadly attack on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan which killed seven, declared a wish that Allah murder fifty thousand more.
But the good imam’s unindicted son, Ikram Khan, reportedly “seethed with anger” about his father’s arrest, claiming that the charges were “100 percent — no, 200 percent — a big lie.” After all, said Ikram, “If he sent money [to Pakistan] it was for good purposes. We are peaceful people. We do not support the Taliban. We support this country. That is why we are here.”
Except the hard evidence — an abundance of taped conversations obtained via wiretaps — demonstrates otherwise. To which Ikram Khan replies that his father must be a victim of “a misinterpretation of language.”
Back to the indictment and its unambiguous language: