In 2004 I was attending a seminar at the Department of Justice with a friend who worked there. He was interested in my diversity training programme on Islam and Muslim communities for government agencies. At the time I was heavily involved with a national Islamic organisation that supported my activist work — anti-war and pro-Palestine protests, defending the Muslim community in the media, running seminars.
I sat down next to a man I did not know. He introduced himself. He told me he was an FBI agent. I perked up in intrigue. Then he told me he was a Muslim. My heart sank as if I were sitting next to Satan himself.
It was time for prayer. I made Thuhr Salat beside him, reluctantly. Afterwards we talked. He explained that his motivation for becoming an agent was to help the Muslim community fight against extremism — and that most of his Muslim friends, and even some of his family, had disowned him when he told them. I walked away with dismay, intrigue, confusion, and a question that took years to answer: how could a Muslim do this?
The answer was already in front of me. I just was not ready to see it yet.
“O you who have believed, when you go forth in the cause of Allah, investigate; and do not say to one who gives you a greeting of peace, ‘You are not a believer,’ aspiring for the goods of worldly life. For with Allah are many acquisitions. You yourselves were like that before; then Allah conferred His favour upon you, so investigate. Indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.” — Qur’an 4:94
Islam does not teach us to make takfir on another Muslim. It took me years to deprogramme from the community narrative that the intentions of government and their investigations are out to round us up. The Muslim agent at the DOJ had the right intention: to investigate and find out who is a threat to the Muslim community and to society at large. The narrative I had been carrying around was not Islamic. It was cultural, and it was wrong.
This article is about why.
Understanding Informants
Confidential informants have been used in domestic law enforcement for a long time, in many Muslim countries and in the West. They are considered an invaluable tool by every law enforcement agency operating against extremism — by Muslims or by non-Muslim groups — as well as against organised crime, drug trafficking, and other crimes. They are not without controversy. The social stigma of “informing” on family or friends has produced a great deal of confusion and misinformation about how informants actually function.
“Not many people know very much about informants, and to many people it’s a queasy area. People are not comfortable with informants… The informant is THE — with a capital T — the most effective tool in law enforcement today, state, local or federal.” — William Webster
The motivations of informants vary widely. Some are upstanding citizens who happen to come across criminal activity. They are not always random members of the public — sometimes they are the leaders of our organisations: presidents, imams, sheikhs. Others are people who have been involved in a group that turned to criminal activity, who themselves became implicated, and who turned on an individual or a group to reduce their own exposure or sentence.
Some informants are paid; many are not. They are not used legally by law enforcement in the United States to subvert religious groups, to act as agents provocateurs, or to manufacture cases against people who have done nothing wrong. They are used in intelligence-led investigations of criminal activity.
“Informants are not official employees of the FBI, but many receive compensation for their services. They are screened for suitability before they enter into relationships with the FBI and are screened periodically thereafter.” — PBS
There are three basic classifications:
- Confidential Informant (CI) — provides additional information in an investigation.
- Cooperating Witness (CW) — testifies in court and operates under a formal agreement regarding obligations and expectations.
- Source of Information (SOI) — does not collect information actively, but provides routine access to information through legitimate professional position.
The use of informants has been standard FBI procedure in the fight against organised crime since 1961. In 1978 a formal programme was established to support active investigations. Informants have been used most notably against the mafia and other organised crime networks, in drug enforcement, against right-wing radical groups, and in domestic and international terrorism cases — with a high degree of success.
The ability to use informants has historically provided an invaluable tool for bringing to light secretive crimes that would otherwise never present themselves for investigation.
Prudence
The use of confidential informants in terrorism-related cases is highly controversial among Muslims in the West, particularly in the United States. The tendency among many Muslims is to view their use as government invasion of privacy, entrapment, and the unjust targeting of Muslims as a group.
As in any area of law enforcement, some people do get caught up in investigations because of abuse by individual officers or handlers. This is the rare exception, not the rule. Government agencies understand that ethical conduct in the use of informants is essential. It is important for our communities to ensure proper oversight of agencies that use informants, and even more important that those agencies maintain factual cases, integrity, and professionalism throughout.
In light of world affairs, it is especially prudent for the Muslim community to prevent acts of terrorism or radicalism before they happen rather than react after the fact. Muslim informants from within the community are better suited to act as a guide for law enforcement than an outside investigator reacting after the event. They are better positioned than someone who does not know how to navigate the community, interpret the language, or identify what someone has expressed an intention to do. Muslim informants are the most likely people to ensure that the government does not build an unjust case based on misunderstandings and prejudice.
Plots are not hatched in the open. They cannot be discovered by ordinary means. If there is a possibility of a threat from radicalism in our communities, then these types of investigations are necessary because of the very nature of the secrecy surrounding plots of this kind.
The Double Standard
In a time when the Islamic community has serious problems with people travelling to Iraq and Syria to join groups like ISIS or al-Qaida, it matters that we deal straight with the government rather than acquiescing to radicalism and then turning on law enforcement when a plot is uncovered.
The double standard is glaring. On the one hand, we claim to condemn extremism and terrorism. On the other hand, we do not want the government to investigate us, and we do not want our people to work with them to root out radical plots from within our ranks. The Muslims who do become informants or FBI agents are often ostracised, and dedicated webpages and social media campaigns spring up to rail against them, sometimes with implicit or explicit threats of violence. In many of these cases the informants and agents cannot publicly rebut the abuse because of ongoing prosecutions that may last for years — making it easy for the family and friends of those accused to mislead public opinion and manufacture a conspiracy. The job of law enforcement, and of those who support them, is not to engage in a social media battle. It is to deal with investigations and the courts.
Islamic organisations publicly tell members to work with law enforcement if they come across information about extremism and terrorism. But within the community, our default is to attack government investigative methods and defend perpetrators rather than weigh the evidence — or support the person who tried to prevent the crime by approaching authorities. It is a catch-22 in logic, and it is a catch-22 the community does not seem to recognise about itself.
In a US court, the defendant is presumed innocent and cannot be convicted if there is reasonable doubt. It is the defence lawyer’s job to create that reasonable doubt — even when the defendant is, in fact, guilty. That is why, given the overwhelming evidence in most extremism cases, the defence almost always claims entrapment. As a community we cannot take defence arguments as scripture and launch campaigns against the government and its informants on behalf of people who are claiming to be falsely accused. We have to weigh the facts ourselves, listen to the court evidence, and understand the legal definition of the very thing we are claiming.
“When they disregarded the warnings that had been given them, We rescued those who forbade Evil; but We visited the wrong-doers with a grievous punishment because they were given to transgression.” — Qur’an 7:165
Focusing on the Wrong People
In any country, in any jurisdiction in the United States, there may be bad agents, bad informants, bad investigations. That is the reason to ensure proper oversight. It is not the reason to be reflexively suspicious of the entire system put in place to protect us from radical violence. It is not the reason to jump on the entrapment bandwagon every time someone in our community is charged. There are far more good agents, good informants, and good investigations than bad ones — and they are there to protect not just the general public, but the Muslim community itself.
Investigations involving informants can run into the millions of dollars. There is no institutional motivation to waste that kind of money making false cases against people who have done nothing wrong, just to “get a Muslim.” Intentionally targeting the wrong people would be counterproductive, and it would let the real threats fall through the cracks.
Conversely, in many Muslim countries — countries from which a great number of Muslims in the United States originate — the system does have a motivation to suppress its own people. Many Muslim organisations operating in those societies are viewed as a direct threat to the ruling party, the dictatorship, or the military power structure. The Arab Uprising made this visible to the world.
“Government critics say Malaysia’s sedition laws have been increasingly used to silence dissent.” — BBC
That is not to justify the actions of those governments. It is to say that Muslims who come to the West and occupy our masajid carry the same cultural attitudes towards the US government that they carried towards their home governments. Those attitudes get taught to converts as if they are Islamic. They are not. They are imported. We hear them parroted from the activist platform, from the minbar at Jumuah, in special talks, conferences, and programmes. They have nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the political experiences of countries that are not the United States.
The Entrapment Bandwagon
Just because a case involves a paid or unpaid informant does not mean the government set out to entrap the would-be perpetrator. It does not reflect on the quality of the information the informant provided.
There is an enormous amount of confusion about what entrapment actually means. In most of the extremism cases where it has been claimed, the people making the claim have no idea what they are talking about. The legal threshold is straightforward: an investigation using an informant requires only that the idea or engagement of the criminal act originate with the would-be criminal. Anything the agency provides after that is for the purpose of discovering the extent of the plot, identifying those involved, and collecting the evidence required to demonstrate intent in court.
“The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the ‘criminal.’” — Online Legal Dictionary
Consider the contrast. When it was first reported that the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building might be the work of Muslims, the assumption ran wild before any investigation had concluded. When Timothy McVeigh was identified — a white Christian boy raised in Lockport, New York — the Christian community did not rally to his defence. They did not declare he had been framed. They did not manufacture conspiracy theories about federal entrapment. They jeered at him as he was led away.
When a Muslim is charged, our community’s first instinct is the opposite. The default is to declare the accused innocent, to claim entrapment before a single piece of evidence is presented, and to treat defence counsel’s argument in court as established truth. Christians did not do this for one of their own. They let the evidence speak. They let the trial run. They let the verdict land.
We could learn from that.
If we want to stay out of the criminal justice system, we stay far away from anything to do with extremism. When I was a young Catholic boy long before I converted to Islam, my grandmother had a rule for us. Don’t say “I’ll kill you” to your brothers and sisters. Someone might believe you.
That rule scales. Don’t talk about wanting to do violent things. Don’t broach the topic if someone else mentions it first. If a conversation turns that direction, walk away from it. If those people are being investigated, they may drag you in with them on the strength of something you said that can be interpreted as intent. If you are not involved, you have nothing to fear. And if you become aware that someone else is involved, you have an obligation to act. We will come to that.
The fact is that the majority of cases involving Muslim informants and Muslim defendants in extremism plots are solid cases built on documented evidence. They are not entrapment.
Rage Against the Informant
Posting names, photographs, and angry videos of informants on the internet is a futile exercise. It accomplishes nothing for the person charged. It does not free them, it does not strengthen their defence, it does not change the evidence. What it does is signal to the wider public that the Muslim community is unwilling to be trusted to help protect society from extremist plots. It subverts the public statements our own leaders give against extremism. It hands every hostile commentator a fresh example of what they have been claiming about us all along.
It does more harm to the peaceful existence of the Muslim community in the West than it does good. And it does nothing — not one thing — to help the person whose name is on the indictment.
We have to get away from the culture of revenge that we imported. Revenge is personal vigilantism. It is misguided more often than not, and it is the cultural inheritance of societies where the rule of law has either failed or never existed. It is not Islam. From the earliest days of the Ummah in Madinah, the rule of law has been central to social justice in Islam. If we believe in the innocence of someone, or in an injustice done to them, then it is our duty to ensure that the truth comes out — through lawful means. Not through revenge.
“Twice will they be given their reward, for that they have persevered, that they avert Evil with Good, and that they spend (in charity) out of what We have given them.” — Qur’an 28:54
“The Messenger of Allah replied: An angel came down from Heaven and he was rejecting what he had said to you. When you took revenge, a devil came down. I was not going to sit when the devil came down.” — Abu Dawud, General Behaviour, Book 41, Number 4878
It may also be that the informant against whom revenge is being plotted is the person in the entire equation who has done nothing wrong. Our duty as Muslims is to stand for justice — even if that justice runs against our families, our tribes, our nations, or our co-religionists.
“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not personal inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort your testimony or refuse to give it, then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.” — Qur’an 4:135
Many criminals are otherwise upstanding citizens. They give to charity. They serve their communities. Drug bosses and mafia leaders have done this for generations. The fact that we know someone as a good neighbour or a generous donor does not mean they are not also engaged in something hidden — something that can only be uncovered through covert investigation. That is the nature of secret crime. It hides itself behind the visible.
Sense and Sensibility
Today, every Muslim country in the world maintains domestic intelligence services designed to root out extremism, drug trafficking, and organised crime. Despite this, an enormous taboo persists among Muslims in the United States about the use of informants in American investigations.
In the United Arab Emirates, plain-clothes police officers operate undercover on the streets and make arrests. The Criminal Investigation Department goes undercover. Who does the average Muslim think the Inter-Services Intelligence agency is in Pakistan? Or the General Intelligence Presidency in Saudi Arabia? Do these agencies announce their investigations to the targets? How does anyone imagine they gather intelligence on plots? They use human intelligence — informants. The same tool, in the same manner, for the same purposes.
“O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much as possible: for suspicion in some cases is a sin. And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it… But fear Allah: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.” — Qur’an 49:12
The Qur’an forbids spying for personal reasons — backbiting, gossip, settling scores. It is clear from the Seerah, the Qur’an, and the consensus of scholars in Muslim countries that informing the authorities about criminal activity that could harm Muslims or society at large is permitted. One would be hard-pressed to find a serious scholar who says otherwise.
The fact is that in the United States and most Western countries, a person stands a far better chance of being accused objectively, having a fair trial, and exercising rights of appeal than they would in many of the Muslim countries those same critics hold up as more legitimate.
Our Islamic Duty
Once a Muslim becomes aware that another Muslim intends to break the law, there is an obligation to bring it to the attention of the authorities and to cooperate as required to protect everyone involved — including the would-be perpetrator from himself.
“And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” — Qur’an 5:2
“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives…” — Qur’an 4:135
The Fiqh Council of North America has issued a clear ruling on the matter:
- All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram in Islam.
- It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group involved in any act of terrorism or violence.
- It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.
Don’t let radicalised Muslims act in your name — in the name of the religion you hold dear. If you have information, the responsibility to stop it falls on you.
If you know someone who has decided that they are going to make hijra to a Muslim land to fight a jihad to establish “justice in the land” and bring back the Caliphate, think ahead about what they are about to do. Think about what it means for the Muslims and the organisations in your country when their plans land on a front page. Think about whose name and whose religion is going to be dragged through the public square afterwards. Think about the families — the parents and siblings of the young men they will recruit on the way.
And then think about this:
The Caliphate cannot be established through violence and injustice.
Article by brjimc © 2015, 2018, revised 2026
Leave a Reply