You are sending a link to...
Imad Enchassi, Of The Oklahoma Mosque That Helped Inspire A Murderer
Imad Enchassi's wild charges here.
A former member of the Oklahoma mosque where Imad Enchassi was, and is, the imam, has described his rants against Israel. A day before one of those who attended his mosque beheaded a co-worker, screaming Islamic phrases as he did so, Imad Enchassi had been claiming that there were threats to "behead" Muslims in Oklahoma. Perhaps Imad Enchassi, who holds a teaching position at a local university, ought to have that position reconsidered. Perhaps his presence as an imam ought to be looked at, and even his presence in the United States. Can he be said to be a welcome presence in this country? If he is a naturalized citizen, did he have to take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, swearing to uphold it? Could his many recorded remarks, especially on freedom of speech, and what one can find by merely comparing Qur'anic passages, which he must surely believe are the immutable words of Allah, and to which he owes his loyalty, with the Constitution, not be the basis for finding that he committed perjury when he swore to uphold the Constitution (or is this not required of those being given citizenship? And if not, why not?) and strip him of that citizenship. There are laws, either on the books or that should be, that could deal with many of the problems that naturalized Muslims pose to the security of the country, to the extent that they take the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira to heart. And we have no way of knowing when a Muslim does not do so, or if he does not do so, what might set him off to become a more fervent Muslim than before. That has to be part of the calculation of risk, which all over the Western world has not been calculated, out of negligence or fear.
Here's a thought. A lawyer should contact the family of the woman beheaded by someone who listened to Imad Enchassi, and attended that mosque, and sue the mosque and Enchassi for encouraging her murderer, and doing nothing to report him to the authorities. Money damages might curtail some of the imad-enchassis of this world, and But even without damages, the lawsuit itself would be salutary, and make Muslim clerics aware that words have consequences, and that they may, or can be, held partly responsible for the acts of those who do nothing more than follow the tenets and teachings of Islam to the letter.
What would Imad Enchassi and others like him claim? Could they claim in their own defense that Islam attracts, as converts, people who are economically and socially marginal, includinng prisoners, recovering addicts, and those who have found in Islam exactly what they needed as a stay against their confusion, that is a Complete Explanation of the Universe? How would that sound as a defense -- Islam attracts those who are already half-crazy, so don't hold us responsible?