Response to Kamran Bokhari

Bokhari writes that "I sincerely hope and pray " that this message will clear up any misconceptions with regards to my status on ALM. As researcher and director of Militant Islam Monitor and Wahabi Watch on Pipeline News, I have undertaken to clear up the misconceptions which Kamran Bokhari has tried to generate in his response to Dr.Pipes and Kenneth Timmerman's exposure of his continued Islamist activities .

. Evidence continues to surface of his close involvement with the Al Muhajiroun leadership in London and the Islamist agenda of the organisations such as the CSID and the AMSS of which he is presentently a member. His employment as a geo political analyst at Stratfor is the ultimate travesty. Even the best of spin meisters and whirling derwishes will not be able spin away Kamran Bokhari's leadership of Al Muhajiroun and continued affiliation with militant Islam.

-------------------------

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/31

Bokhari's response to Dr. Pipe's article "The USIP Stumbles " and MIM press release.

There are several serious problems with the allegations made by Dr. Daniel Pipes regarding my past association to al-Muhajiroun (ALM). These assertions, were first published March 19 in an article ‘Pipes Objects to Fox in the Henhouse' , have necessitated that I respond, in an effort to clarify my position. I apologize for the length of the message, but at the same time I feel it was unavoidable.

Contrary to Dr. Pipes' claims that I was ALM's spokesperson until last year, I would like to state, for the record, that I have not had any ties to this group for five years now. In fact, I have severely condemned al-Muhajiroun on multiple occasions. What's more is that my views on radical Islamism and jihadism are open for public scrutiny in my articles, most recent of which are ‘Is Democracy Kufr?' & ‘What is Moderate Islam & Who Are Moderate Muslims?', published in the December and March issues of Q-News, respectively. Moreover, the archives of the Political Islam Discussion List (PIDL), based out of The University of Texas server, which I founded in June 2000, and continue to moderate, are replete with my views for everyone to see whether I am a radical Islamist supporting al-Qaeda (as depicted by Dr. Pipes) or an aspiring Muslim scholar of political Islam.

What is really ironic is that Campus Watch, a project founded by Dr. Pipes expressed appreciation for a panel entitled ‘Rescuing Islamic Political Theory from the Jihadist Ideology', which I organized at last year's Middle East Studies Association (MESA) annual meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. I presented a paper ‘Jihad & Jihadism: A Rendition of Transnational Militant Non-State Actors' as part of this panel. I will be presenting this paper again at this year's American Political Science Association (APSA) annual meeting in Chicago in August. An earlier version of this paper ‘The Social & Ideological Roots of Jihadism: A Constructivist Understanding to Non-State Actors' also appeared in the Middle East Affairs Journal [8:3-4], a publication of the United Association for Research and Studies (UASR). Incidentally UASR, back in 1999 invited Dr. Pipes to a forum ‘Islamism: A Critique, and Dr. Ahmad Yusuf, the head of UASR published an article in the Middle East Quarterly [5:1] of which Dr. Pipes is the publisher.

Anyway, my brief and limited affiliation with ALM was not in the capacity of the typical member or leader, as Dr. Pipes has inaccurately stated. Instead, as a Muslim individual, I was interested in the initial ideas of the group, at the time of its formation. ALM began as a forum for promoting debate and cooperation amongst various Islamic organizations, and fighting partisan politics among Muslims interested in the establishment of an Islamic polity via peaceful means. I have always strongly stood against the use of violence as a means to effecting political change. One of the reasons behind my interest in ALM was its advocacy of socio-political change through intellectual/ideological/political means. I disassociated myself from the group when it became clear to me that ALM had reduced itself to being a cheerleading club for jihadists. Also, I realized that my true calling was in the academic/scholarly study of Islam as opposed to activism. Then, over time, I also underwent an ideological shift, which is why I refer to myself as a post-Islamist.

Put differently, I am a moderate Muslim committed to the goal of establishing democracies in the Muslim world in keeping with its Islamic ethos, an objective, which is also shared by the Bush White House. My interest in democratization and democratic consolidation led me to become a Fellow with the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID). Moreover, my thesis for my first Masters in Int'l Affairs & Administration (from Southwest Missouri State University) was entitled ‘Islam and Democracy in the Context of Contemporary Islamic Resurgence'. I have also presented papers at the annual conferences of CSID for the last three consecutive years. As a matter of fact, the U.S. State Department carried a report on my panel from the 2003 conference, specifically quoting me. This is now posted on the websites of many <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region> embassies all over the world, and that too in multiple languages. What is both ironic and interesting is that on one hand we have individuals like Dr. Pipes accusing people like myself of being militant Islamists, while the real radicals & militants accuse us of being <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region> lackeys.

Going back to ALM, with the exception of myself, all of the other <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region> affiliates of ALM (a London based group) lived in New York. Since I resided in Springfield, MO, I was never part of the group's meetings, planning, decision-making, etc. My relationship with the group was unidirectional in that I kept up with the group's literature and activities on my own initiative mostly via the web. I never had any formal membership with the party, which is why when I left, there was no formal disassociation either. Moreover, I was also not involved in the formation of the group's <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region> chapter (if one can call it that). In early 1996, a few former Hizb al-Tahrir (HT) affiliates in New York left HT after serious disagreements with the leadership, and were looking to form an alternative group to pursue their intellectual, ideological, political, and cultural interests. At about the same time, coincidently they found out about Omar Bakri's departure from HT in the <st1:country-region>UK</st1:country-region>, and his subsequent founding of ALM. These ex-HT members became interested, and following a lengthy and extensive phone conversation with Bakri, they decided to form a chapter on a voluntary basis in New York, autonomous from London. I myself was not part of this process, and only decided to become part of the group much later, but always remained a long-distance affiliate. In reality, I was far more active as part of the Muslim Students' Association on my campus and in the local mosque than with ALM.

Another thing that needs to be understood is that the ALM of today is very different than the group it began as in 1996. It started off as a group seeking to bridge the differences amongst the many Islamic movements worldwide. It also called for healthy dialogue amongst people of different faiths. Little did many of us know that ALM would turn into something much more worse than HT. In mid-1998, however, and to the shock of those of us here in the <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region>, the group began assuming pro-jihadist stances. This was quite paradoxical as Bakri earlier had written a detailed treatise rebutting claims by militant Islamists that jihad was a valid modus operandi to establish an Islamic state. Nevertheless, this was the point when many of us began having second thoughts, and one after the other, almost all of us eventually left.

Three years later, shortly after the horrendous attacks on September 11, 2001, I learned that Bakri had issued a fatwah condemning the 9/11 attacks as Islamically forbidden acts, because non-combatants and civilian infrastructure had been targeted. After the <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region> invasion of <st1:country-region>Afghanistan</st1:country-region>, however, he made an outrageous volte face, and said that the attacks were in fact justified. By 2002, the group had undergone yet another change as it had metamorphosed into a Neo-Salafist (Wahhabi)/Jihadist outfit. This is actually another example of the many diametrical changes in ALM. In the early days, Bakri wrote an article blasting the founder of Wahhabism. Since then he has done a 180 where he now celebrates Muhammad bin Abdel Wahhab. I am not sure, but I do not think that there are any ALM activists in the <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region> any longer as the group was small to begin with, and Omar Bakri's flirtations with jihadism drove pretty much everybody away, quite some time ago. Clearly ALM has turned out to be one of those fringe London-based rogue Islamist groups that seek media attention by making a lot of noise after jihadists stage their attacks. Given that it is a one-man show, I predict that ALM will not outlive its leader Omar Bakri.

Looking back though, I regret my ignorance of the group's evolution and intellectual trajectory. Not being in close proximity to the group's core, however, prevented me from sensing the radical/militant direction in which the group was heading. At the time, I was an undergraduate, but upon entering grad school I realized that my interest was in academic scholarship and not in activism, which is perhaps another reason for my departure from the group.

My assuming of the role of ALM's spokesperson on this side of the Atlantic was by no means a serious undertaking (ALM's presence in the <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region> was always quite insignificant). I guess I was asked to take up the position due to my communicational skills, and abilities. It was an idea thrown out by one of the ex-affiliates from New York. Since ALM as an organization had no structure in the <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region>, it was proposed that a spokesperson would be the best point of reference for the group. I was never given any directions by Bakri or anyone else on what I should say. On a few occasions, I recall voicing my own frustration with the folks in London that even though I had no input in the decision-making process, I was forced to defend their statements, many of which I found myself strongly disagreeing with. To my utter dismay, my protestations only fell on deaf ears. In the beginning, I viewed myself as responsible for representing ALM in the media and the general public. The occasion to represent the group in the media (electronic/press) never arose, but I did write a handful of messages on a host of Muslim email discussion/distribution lists, trying to explain the group's take on miscellaneous matters. In essence, I was a spokesperson only in cyberspace and that too briefly. I take it that this is perhaps how my relationship with the group may have become public knowledge.

In any case, it is most unfortunate that a scholar of Dr. Pipes' stature would choose to cast me in such a negative light based on cursory and inaccurate information, and without even bothering to ascertain the precise nature of my limited association with ALM. Such reckless and misleading characterizations can ruin the lives of many innocent people. What I find really odd is why Dr. Pipes never wrote about me until now, i.e., many years after I left ALM. More importantly, why would someone calling for democracy be part of an organization that considers democracy to be antithetical to Islam? Anyway, Dr. Pipes' determination to protect people from dangerous individuals and organizations is both understandable and admirable, however, is the good doctor willing to live with the guilt that his irresponsible attitude caused unnecessary grief to individuals and their families? I sincerely hope and pray that this message will clear up any misconceptions with regards to my status on ALM.

Regards,

-------

-------
Kamran A. Bokhari
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
Howard University
2441, Sixth Street
Washington, DC 20059

-----------------

These are messages posted on Hootinan to Bokhari from someone who claims to be a Muslim who was student with him in Missouri.

http://www.hootinan.com/?entry=2438_The_U.S._Institute_of_Peace_Stumbles

	aybars	Tue, 03/30/2004 03:33am
Mr. Bokhari has certainly ties with the mentioned group. In Springfield Missouri, he used to bring in fatwas from his leader based in London, for the killing of the regular Muslims. Mr. Bokhari in 1995 said that "they were going to break the hands of the US government" and was used to threaten the Muslims whom did not take his side. Mr. Bokhari is a clear and present danger to both Muslims and US citizend... to the attention of the authorities!

3	Kamran A Bokhari	Wed, 03/31/2004 09:10pm
I do not know who you are, why you didn't bother to identify yourself, or leave an email contact, and what is your agenda behind these malicious accusations. Indeed, I, like any other human being have my disagreements with others, however, I have never called for the use of violence against any individual, group, or state. Moreover, for the record, I didn't move to Springfield, MO until late 95. The group in question didn't exist until 96 and my affiliation didn't take place until Jan 97. Regarding my positions on matters political and Islamic, they are well known to my professors, fellow students, co-workers, friends, colleagues. As for you sir, who ever you are, whatever your problem is, I can only request that you desist from hurling false accusations. But then again the nature of the internet is as such that anyone can say anything at anytime. No wonder academia, despite years of efforts to standardize citation of material found on the web, remains skeptical about the veracity of information available on this medium.

4	aybars	Wed, 04/14/2004 04:35am
When he first comes to Springfield MO, Mr. Bokhari calls us, "The Muslim Students Association" and asks for help. Now it's interesting that he doesn't remember me!.... Aybars..... The guy who took him around, the guy who opened up his house for him and his family and the guy for whom he issued death sentences from London. Along with another couple of my friends, Bokhari tried to show us as enemies of Islam although we were Muslims. The reason? Because we were too liberal! According to Bokhari, we had to fight with the government of USA and American people. When we refused this and kicked him out from our lives; he started to attack more. Maybe he was getting his tactics from his visits to the federal prison in Springfield... when he used to visit the guy who tried to knock down the World Trade Center with a bomb before 9/11. Kamran Bokhari! After seeing waht you have done, I made an oath to fight with the likes of you. As a Muslim, this is my responsibility. I already threw down your mask, but you do not know it yet. I repeat: Kamran Bokhari, is a clear and present danger not just for US citizens and Muslims, but for all the humanity. Where do you think terrorist bomb cells come from? From people like Kamran Bokhari, who hide behind the big old masks they wear, till they get a chance to ruin the lifes of American people....

5	Kamran A. Bokhari	Mon, 04/19/2004 06:34pm
Again whoever you are, and whatever your objectives may be, I see that you have chosen to continue with your private little "jihad" against me. What I don't understand though is the purpose behind your crude and unsubstantiated comments. Nonetheless, I have, decided that this will be my last response to you. Any further attempts on my part at a dialogue with someone who hides behind single word pseudonyms, lies, and is only interested in maligning, would only be sheer foolishness. Moreover, I neither have the time nor the energy for such immature exchanges. Each of your allegations can easily be demonstarted with incontrovertible evidence as being false, but I do not deem that exercise as necessary. I will, however, leave you with two points to consider - assuming that you will. First, had any of your assertions been true, then my alma mater Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, MO would not have invited me this past April 2 to come back as a guest speaker to address the issue of 'Anti-Americanism in the Muslim World' from a scholarly perspective. Also, the U.S. State Department would never have allowed its Director of Public Affairs David Ballard to be my co-panelist at this well-attended event. Second, and more importantly, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), a federal government agency on April 1, following its extensive investigation of the charges made by Dr. Daniel Pipes (whose article prompted you, whoever you are, to emerge out of nowhere and start attacking me) against myself and the organization I belong to - the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), issued an official statement declaring his claims as being without merit. Think about this before you embarrass yourself any further. Good bye and best wishes.

6	aybars	Sun, 04/25/2004 10:17pm
Keep on lying man! God will take care of you! And for the hereafter, be ready; for you will be shaken by the eternal justice. I repeat: Kamran Bokhari is a clear and present danger for all humanity and he is definitely a terrorist cell hiding in USA. By the way, he loves to tell that he has a red diplomatic passport and that nobody can touch him!

---------------------------------------

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/Belief/Khilafah/six.html

The only solution!

Bismillah-ar-Rahman-ar-Raheem

Part six

Salam, Akhi Shehadah, As-Salamalaikum! Mashallah u have outlined as to what happened after the death of the Prophet with respect to the issue of Khilafah. But I feel it is necessary to translate the concept of electing the Khalifah for the contemporary times. It will be helpful, if all those on this list can get a perspective on what will happen or how should it happen in today's world. JazakamullahkhairWa'SalamYours-in-IslamKamran Bokhari JAk brother Kamran for your message and interest in the articles about Khilafah. You are right, we need to translate the concept of electing the Khalifah for the contemporary times. As schedualed in the outline I posted two weeks ago this issue will be discussed soon insha'allah, I ho next week. First I am going to discuss in more details how each Khalif w elected and discuss some few points related to the issue of bay'ah and choosing the Khalifah. I am starting today with Abu Bakr, next messag insha'allah will discuss the position of Sa'd Ibnu Ubadah and Ali from the bay'ah of Abu Bakr. I welcome any other suggestions or comments. If people think it is not necessary to go in more details in the bay'ah of th first four Khulafah and the practice of the Sahabah and we should concentrat on our contemporary time I am ready to do so.Salam,Shehadeh --------------------------------------------------- In the appointment of Abu Bakr some Muslims had debated in the courtyard of Bani Sa'ida; the nominees were Sa'd bin Ubada, Abu Ubayda , Umar and Abu Bakr, and as a result of the debate Abu Bakr was given the bay'ah. On the next day the Muslims wer called to the mosque and they gave him the bay'ah. As a result of this bay'ah Abu Bakr became the Khalif. Let's read part of what happened in the courtyard of Bani Sa'id as narrated in Al-Bukhari on the authority of Ibn Abas in Kitab Al-Hudood (see Fath Al-Bari vol. 12) that Umar said in a Jum' speech (Friday speech) "... And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we wer informed that the Ansar did not gather with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, did not come with us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, 'Let's go to these Ansari brothers of ours.' So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, 'O group of Muhajirin (emigrants) ! Where are you going?' We replied, 'We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.' They said to us, 'You shouldn't go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.' I said, 'By Allah, we will go to them.' And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa'da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, 'Who is that man?' They said, 'H is Sa'd bin 'Ubada.' I asked, 'What is wrong with him?' Theysaid, 'He is sick.' After we sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'Non has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah He deserved, he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, th emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practising this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.' When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he w wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said th like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause h said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you hav attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) i only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regard descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choo either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubad bin Abdullah's hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than becom the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unl at the time of my death my own-self suggests something I don'tfeel at present.' And then one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy th itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.' Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' H held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa'd bin Ubada. One of the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' I replied, 'Allah has killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' Umar added, "By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to u (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become Khalifah) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one h has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed." Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Aisha in Kitab Fadha'il Al-Sahabah (see Fath Al-Bari vol. 7) "...the Ansar were assembled with Sa'd bin 'Ubada in th courtyard of Bani Saida. They said (to the emigrants) "Ther should be one 'Amir from us and one from you." Then Abu Bakr, Umar bin Al-Khattab and Abu Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah went to them. Umar wanted to speak but Abu Bakr stopped him. Umar later on used to say, "By Allah, I intended only to say something that appealed to me and I was afraid that Abu Bakr would not speak so well. Then Abu Bakr spoke and his speech was very eloquent. He said in his statement, "We are the rulers and you (Ansars) are th ministers (i.e. advisers)," Hubab bin Al-Mundhir said, "No, by Allah we won't accept this. But there must be a ruler from us and a ruler from you." Abu Bakr said, "No, we will be the rulers and you will be the ministers ... you should elect either 'Umar or Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah as your ruler." 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No but we elect you, for you are our chief and the best amongst us and the most beloved of all of us to Allah's Apostle." So 'Umar took Abu Bakr's hand and gave the pledge of allegian and the people too gave the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. In the books of Al-fasil-fil Milal by Ibnu Hazim, Tarikh of Al-tabari, Al-A'kd Al-Farid of Al-Waqidi, Al-Sira of Ibnu Kathir, Al-Sunan Al-Kubra of Bayhaqi and Siratu Ibn Hisham, that Al-Habbab Ibnu Al-Munthir said when the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of the Prophet (SWA) at the saqif (hall) of Bani sa'ida: One Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from th Mohajireen). Upon this Abu Bakr replied: "It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)..." Then he got u and addressed the Muslims. And it has been reported in th Sirah of Ibnu Ishaq that Abu Bakr said on the day of Saqifa: "It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida' (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one's interest." Therefore Abu Bakr delivered the Sharia verdict on th unity of the Khilafah, stressing that it is forbidden for the Muslim Ummah to have more than one Amir. The Sahabah heard him and approved and consented, no one disputed th verdict, but submitted to it and accepted it as a law (indication of evidence from the Sunnah). The Ansar then conceded their claim to the Khilafah, and Al-Habbab Ibnu Al-Munthir (who is from the Ansar) was the first to give th pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr (RA). The public bay'ah took place next day in the mosque. Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Anas bin Malik That he heard 'Umar's second speech he delivered when he sat on the pulpit on the day following the death of the Prophet 'Umar recited the Tashahhud while Abu Bakr was silent. 'Umar said, "I wish that Allah's Apostle had outlived all of us, i.e., had been the last (to die). But if Muhammad is dead, Allah neverthel has kept the light amongst you from which you can receive th same guidance as Allah guided Muhammad with that. And Abu Bakr is the companion of Allah's Apostle He is the second of the two in the cave. He is the most entitled person among the Muslims to manage your affairs. Therefore get up and swear allegiance to him." Some people had already taken the oath of allegiance to him in the shed of Bani Sa'ida but the oath of allegiance taken by the public was taken at the pulpit. " More next message, the position of Sa'd Ibnu Ubada and Ali from the bay'ah of Abu Bakr.

This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/95