Feds Say They Haven't Released All the Evidence Against Izhar Khan

Categories: Crime
Photo by Mike Rice
Scene from the Margate mosque protest in June.
U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan denied a bond request earlier this week for Hafiz Khan -- a Miami imam who's among six people charged with conspiring to support the Pakistani Taliban -- but the judge made no such ruling for his sons.

Jordan didn't rule on the bond of 24-year-old Izhar Khan -- who was the imam of Margate's Masjid Jamaat Al-Mumineen mosque before his arrest in May -- nor did he rule on the bond of his brother, Irfan Khan, because he said he needed more evidence against him to make a decision.

Now, the prosecutors say they have revealed only "partial evidence," according to the Associated Press.

A new bond hearing is set for next week, in which the prosecution is set to produce more evidence they hope will keep the men jailed for the trial.

They better hope they have something more than what they've presented to the court, because the evidence they've provided against Izhar Khan, as we've noted, is paper-thin.

In the federal indictment filed on May 12, prosecutors allege 27 "overt facts" against the six people charged.

Just two of those mention Izhar Khan:

7. On or about July 11, 2009, [Hafiz] Khan asked Izhar to collect from a donor in the United States money that Khan told Izhar had been approved for the mujahideen.

9. On or about July 16, 2009, Izhar caused $900 to be sent via wire transfer to [his sister] in Pakistan.

In a nutshell, Izhar Khan has been charged with conspiring to support the Pakistani Taliban for sending $900 to his sister, according to the feds.

He faces three counts of conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, which carry maximum prison sentences of 15 years each.

Follow The Pulp on Facebook and on Twitter: @ThePulpBPB.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Guess now in this country it is guilty until proven innocent, then still labeled as guilty.


I don't understand your post. The indictment indicates that he sent money to Pakistan 5 days after his father specifically asked him to collect money for the mujhadeen operating there.He has a 20 year old wife as well as other family ties in Pakistan.Therefore the court has deemed him a flight risk and denied bond.He has not been convicted of a crime or sentenced to prison. He has an attorney, and is being afforded the same rights as anyone else going through the U.S. judicial system.Those who presume his guilt and call for his immediate deportation or punishment are in fact insulting our U.S. justice system. If a jury of his peers find him guilty, then by the law of the land, he is guilty. And if they find him not-guilty (doesn't even have to be "innocent") then he will and should be released with no further sanctions, punishments, or harassment hanging over his head. Otherwise, we might as well return to the lynchmob.However, your post indicates that he is being denied freedom of religion and has been convicted prior to his trial, neither of which is indicated in this or any other media account I have read of this case. In fact, if you read todays account of the proceedings, you will see that up to fifty supporters filled the court room and all faced Mecca and got down on their knees and prayed during breaks in the day IN THE COURT ROOM!!!! God bless America (and that includes Allah, Buddha, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster) where such a blatant display of freedom of religion can occur and is STILL constitutionally protected (unless you have evidence of any of the spectators being arrested for praying or ANYONE arrested in this country SOLEY for being Muslim).And he IS innocent until proven guilty, hence the upcoming trial to determine his guilt or lack thereof in accordance with our laws. If he is found not-guilty, regardless of his religion or even political dispositions, he will be freed.So please explain to me why this whole procedure indicates "so much for freedom of religion and innocent until proven guilty" to you.P.s. - I'm not saying that I agree with the judges decision to withhold bond, but I don't think that it was outlandishly unreasonable considering the young mans close family ties and wife in another country. I had an acquaintence denied bond on Marijuana distribution and money laundering charges  because he was born in Guatemala, even though he left when he was 6 and had only been back to the country ONCE in his whole life. The reasoning was that because he was in regular touch w his abuela, he might find a haven with her if he fled the country before trial. Reasonable? I didn't think so. Fair? Probably not. A hardship on his family? Undeniable. Within the Judges right as spelled out by the laws of our land? Absolutely.(I relate this anectdote as an illustration that having ties in another country is sometimes grounds to deny bond, and that it doesn't only happen to Muslims or Pashtuns.)


I think your comment was misdirected. This article is not about Casey Anthony


Not misdirected at all.  I put it there to make a point.

Now Trending

Miami Concert Tickets

From the Vault