Radical Orlando Imam Says 'Some Journalists Need to Be Beheaded'

[Solomon2]

Radical Orlando Imam Says 'Some Journalists Need to Be Beheaded'

BY DEBRA HEINE JUNE 16, 2016

During an appearance on Fox News' "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" Wednesday, a radical imam said to be tied to the Orlando terrorist made some fairly shocking statements, including voicing his opinion that some journalists deserve to be beheaded, which he quickly took back. He also claimed to support stonings for adultery, and said he believes most reports of suicide bombings are false.

Imam Abu Taubah (a.k.a. Marcus Robertson) was a gang leader and bank robber before becoming a radical imam in Orlando. He is considered by law enforcement sources to be an effective terrorist recruiter. He spent four years in prison on illegal weapons and tax fraud charges before being released by a Florida judge one year ago.

Fox News broke the story earlier this week that Omar Mateen had enrolled in Taubah's online "Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary,” a report Taubah vehemently denied.

"That is totally not true," Taubah told Greta Van Susteren in part one of the interview. "He never registered at our school. He never took classes at our school. I don't know him. Never met him -- those things are totally unfounded."

Taubah disavowed Mateen's terrorist attack on the nightclub and insisted that it had nothing to do with Islam, although according to Fox News, the imam has openly and enthusiastically preached against homosexuality.

"That is a terrible thing that happened to those people, 50 people getting killed, and 50 other people getting shot. Islam doesn't -- no one can justify that with Islam. Not using just Islam. There is no Islamic justification for that we can't even slap people in the face in Islam. You know, there are laws and there are rules," Taubah told Van Susteren.

He also said that Islam doesn't "promote" suicide bombings and shared his theory that a lot of reports about suicide bombings are false. "We hear about these suicide bombings," Taubah said. "I personally don't believe that all these guys are suicide bombers."

"What do you think they are," Van Susteren asked. "I don't know -- they're dead," Taubah answered succinctly.

In the second segment, Taubah refused to condemn the stoning of women for adultery, comparing it to the death penalty in the United States. When Van Susteren noted that women are primarily the victims of the penalty, Taubah had just enough social justice warrior in him to concede that gender bias in stonings was wrong, but refused to accept that that was the case. "What I condemn is the concept that stoning is an inappropriate punishment," Taubah argued. "Because we find in the Quran and the Sunnah that we stone the person who is an adulterer -- meaning who has been married."

Asked about the ISIS beheading of James Foley, Taubah said casually, “I believe some journalists need to be beheaded, but I wouldn’t have done that.”

A stunned Van Susteren said, "You believe some journalists ought to be beheaded?!"

“I only say that facetiously,” Taubah replied, walking back his original answer.

SPONSORED
While most of Taubah's statements bordered on the insane, the controversial imam did have one opinion many Americans can relate to.

When asked whom he supported in the upcoming presidential election, he said, "I don't like either one."

Van Susteren made the entire uncut interview available on YouTube:

 

[Viper0011.]

Radical Orlando Imam Says 'Some Journalists Need to Be Beheaded'

BY DEBRA HEINE JUNE 16, 2016

During an appearance on Fox News' "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" Wednesday, a radical imam said to be tied to the Orlando terrorist made some fairly shocking statements, including voicing his opinion that some journalists deserve to be beheaded, which he quickly took back. He also claimed to support stonings for adultery, and said he believes most reports of suicide bombings are false.

A lot of crazy shiit was said in this interview. Unbelievable. The guy refused to agree that there is a terrorism problem!! How effing convenient. I was flipping some news channel to see updates on Orlando investigation and there was a news on tv that one of the Orlando imaam's were fired from their mosque for having these old and extremism like views. I didn't care to watch that in details. But coming across this thread, I wonder if that was him. He did give out some crazy answers to her questions (I am not a big fan of her style either, she's very cunning just by her looks and demeanor). But this fool had a clear shot at explaining the real Islam. Instead, he read the same effing song to her that we witnessed in Pulse resulting in so many casualties of people who had nothing to do with anything. Twisted and perverted effing ideologies!! Muslims need to come out and support what's right, and show strong opinions on what's wrong. Specially, when your future generations are at risk because of ISIS, etc!!

 

[Zabaniyah]

Muslims need to come out and support what's right, and show strong opinions on what's wrong. Specially, when your future generations are at risk because of ISIS, etc!!

The guy is a total wack, no doubt.

Maybe it's just me. From my observation, a number of these converts in the U.S. were at one point criminals, and probably still are. It's a dangerous psychology.

I recently read a report where a Muslim couple threatened a waitress over no apparent reason.
http://5newsonline.com/2016/06/16/p...sted-on-suspicion-of-terroristic-threatening/

Why they do these illegal or controversial activities? I don't know. That might partly explain the overwhelmingly negative opinion of Islam in view of Americans. I also understand that the NoI is controversial. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I like others cannot speak for other Muslim-majority countries and Muslim societies in Western countries like the U.S.

The key thing that is wrong is intolerance among Muslims. This needs to be addressed properly.

 

[Anubis]

Radical Orlando Imam Says 'Some Journalists Need to Be Beheaded'

BY DEBRA HEINE JUNE 16, 2016

During an appearance on Fox News' "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" Wednesday, a radical imam said to be tied to the Orlando terrorist made some fairly shocking statements, including voicing his opinion that some journalists deserve to be beheaded, which he quickly took back. He also claimed to support stonings for adultery, and said he believes most reports of suicide bombings are false.

Imam Abu Taubah (a.k.a. Marcus Robertson) was a gang leader and bank robber before becoming a radical imam in Orlando. He is considered by law enforcement sources to be an effective terrorist recruiter. He spent four years in prison on illegal weapons and tax fraud charges before being released by a Florida judge one year ago.

Fox News broke the story earlier this week that Omar Mateen had enrolled in Taubah's online "Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary,” a report Taubah vehemently denied.

"That is totally not true," Taubah told Greta Van Susteren in part one of the interview. "He never registered at our school. He never took classes at our school. I don't know him. Never met him -- those things are totally unfounded."

Taubah disavowed Mateen's terrorist attack on the nightclub and insisted that it had nothing to do with Islam, although according to Fox News, the imam has openly and enthusiastically preached against homosexuality.

"That is a terrible thing that happened to those people, 50 people getting killed, and 50 other people getting shot. Islam doesn't -- no one can justify that with Islam. Not using just Islam. There is no Islamic justification for that we can't even slap people in the face in Islam. You know, there are laws and there are rules," Taubah told Van Susteren.

He also said that Islam doesn't "promote" suicide bombings and shared his theory that a lot of reports about suicide bombings are false. "We hear about these suicide bombings," Taubah said. "I personally don't believe that all these guys are suicide bombers."

"What do you think they are," Van Susteren asked. "I don't know -- they're dead," Taubah answered succinctly.

In the second segment, Taubah refused to condemn the stoning of women for adultery, comparing it to the death penalty in the United States. When Van Susteren noted that women are primarily the victims of the penalty, Taubah had just enough social justice warrior in him to concede that gender bias in stonings was wrong, but refused to accept that that was the case. "What I condemn is the concept that stoning is an inappropriate punishment," Taubah argued. "Because we find in the Quran and the Sunnah that we stone the person who is an adulterer -- meaning who has been married."

Asked about the ISIS beheading of James Foley, Taubah said casually, “I believe some journalists need to be beheaded, but I wouldn’t have done that.”

A stunned Van Susteren said, "You believe some journalists ought to be beheaded?!"

“I only say that facetiously,” Taubah replied, walking back his original answer.

SPONSORED
While most of Taubah's statements bordered on the insane, the controversial imam did have one opinion many Americans can relate to.

When asked whom he supported in the upcoming presidential election, he said, "I don't like either one."

Van Susteren made the entire uncut interview available on YouTube:

He clearly made a death threat here....now tell me why he can't be arrested!

 

[haviZsultan]

He clearly made a death threat here....now tell me why he can't be arrested!

US tolerates terrorists that do not target their people. There are a number of surprising cases like Abdullah Masid, Pacha Khan Zadran and Muslim Khan having links to US. As long as a terrorist makes threats to other countries and not the US he is tolerated. That is the only logical explanation. Therefore clerics like these say things to fit in while they support terrorism in their own lands.

 

[pak-marine]

Well here is a suspect

 

[Zabaniyah]

*cough* *cough*

 

[Mufflerman]

Start with bharka and crapdesai

 

[jhungary]

He clearly made a death threat here....now tell me why he can't be arrested!

Strangely enough, he did not actually break any law by saying this.......

In US Law, a threat have to be substantial and appeared to be planned What he said can only be classed as general comment, as he does not mention or indicate whom should be beheaded and how......He is what we refer to as a "Empty Threat", I don't think he can even be charged "inciting violence"

If he have openly stated how and who should be behead, it may work...Law is funny like that, they do not prevent crime, they just punish them when they were committed

 

[guest11]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Indian tribute should start with Barkha and Sagarika. Binding legal contract, non negotiable.

Strangely enough, he did not actually break any law by saying this.......

In US Law, a threat have to be substantial and appeared to be planned What he said can only be classed as general comment, as he does not mention or indicate whom should be beheaded and how......He is what we refer to as a "Empty Threat", I don't think he can even be charged "inciting violence"

If he have openly stated how and who should be behead, it may work...Law is funny like that, they do not prevent crime, they just punish them when they were committed

Should this not be in contradiction to "you can't yell fire at a crowded place"? Just asking.

 

[Anubis]

Strangely enough, he did not actually break any law by saying this.......

In US Law, a threat have to be substantial and appeared to be planned What he said can only be classed as general comment, as he does not mention or indicate whom should be beheaded and how......He is what we refer to as a "Empty Threat", I don't think he can even be charged "inciting violence"

If he have openly stated how and who should be behead, it may work...Law is funny like that, they do not prevent crime, they just punish them when they were committed

But couldn't this be labeled as inciting violence? That is nor protected by first amendment!

 

[jhungary]

But couldn't this be labeled as inciting violence? That is nor protected by first amendment!

Not really sure the nuts and bolts in specific law and no time to read or ask for the appropriate term (My wife is a Lawyer of Common Law System) but most incitement require a "guilty mind" (or mens rea in law term)

How do you proof of a "Guilty Mind" with a few words said, notice that what he actually said is "Some Journalist needed to be beheaded" the question itself lies on his intention, whether or not he was actually behind this ideology (beheading journist) Problem is, he does not provide specific detail on this action.

Now, if he was to be charged with inciting violence (or incitement) the argument lies in the intented target but not audience. i.e. How do you go about beheading journist? This act is lacking. And since you cannot be inciting violence to a random subject (You cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the subject is hurt is because of the incitement or by other factors) Any lawyer would have argue that, it's a neither or all situation, and you cannot prove each case by intention, as there are none with his word.

Now if he published a hit list of sort or how to find their target to be beheaded or even what kind of knife is needed to behead someone, then that would be a different ball game...

I wholeheartedly agree.

Indian tribute should start with Barkha and Sagarika. Binding legal contract, non negotiable.



Should this not be in contradiction to "you can't yell fire at a crowded place"? Just asking.

I think you can yell fire in a crowded place............

Fire can mean a lot of things....

 

[guest11]

I think you can yell fire in a crowded place............

Fire can mean a lot of things....

I always thought that you can't. Recklessness and endangering lives and whatnot. My mistake.

 

[Jaanbaz]

How come FOX News which is a right wing Christian and Muslim bashing network allows radical Muslim imams to voice their opinion? They usually shut up the sane ones.

Does anyone still remember this idiocy from fox?

 

[jhungary]

I always thought that you can't. Recklessness and endangering lives and whatnot. My mistake.

I think you cannot pull fire alarm in public place out of nothing. Because fire alarm serve a specific purpose, and pulling it willingly without fire would or could be contribute to inciting panic, hence reckless endangerment.

Cannot vouch for it tho, my wife is asleep lol have to ask her tomorrow morning.