* "Let their [sic] be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America."

* CAIR is an "organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection."

* "ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries."

* "Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the emoderate' face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries."

* "CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America."

CAIR Admits Officials Have Ties to Islamist Terrorism

In a stunning revelation, Corey Saylor, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) government affairs director, on 2 March admitted that convicted Islamic terrorists were CAIR officials when they committed terrorist acts against the United States.

In an article carried by Delcotimes.com, Saylor is responding to questions about Ghassan Elashi and Ismail Royer and their ties to the leader of Hamas and activities in support of overseas terrorist organizations. While Saylor first said that Elashi and Royer were not working on behalf the group, he was later quoted:

"Some people try to hold us responsible for the actions of people that are associated with our organization. That’s absolutely ludicrous … you don’t hold all of Enron responsible for what Ken Lay did."

For those North Americans that ever had any questions about CAIR’s ties to Elashi and Royer, and, by association, tied directly to Islamist terrorists, those questions have been answered by CAIR’s own spokesman.

Saylor seems to have forgotten that Enron folded like a cheap tent when the criminal activities of its leadership were exposed …

CAIR initially filed suit in a Virginia Circuit Court on March 31, 2004, claiming six of Whitehead's statements were false, that Whitehead made them "with knowledge of their falsity," and that the statements were actionable because "they impute the commission of a criminal offense." CAIR further claimed injury to its "standing and reputation throughout the United States and elsewhere," and sought $1 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages, plus legal fees and interest. It did so despite Whitehead's telling a reporter "I haven't got any [money]."

The original five statements as quoted in CAIR's complaint were:

œ "Let their [sic] be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America."

œ CAIR is an "organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection."

œ "ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries."

œ "Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the emoderate' face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries."

œ "CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America."

The original completion date for the mosque was November 2004. The project has faced so many delays since then that mosque officials are reluctant to set a new completion date. With each month of delay, construction costs have risen, swelling the budget for the project from an original estimate of $22 million to around $24.5 million, and putting the new mosque's first day of prayers further from reach ...

Under the 2000 deal, the Islamic Society of Boston bought the Roxbury land, valued at $401,187, for $175,000. The remainder was to be paid in kind: the Islamic Society was to maintain a playground and park by the Roxbury parcel for 10 years, offer lectures on Islam at Roxbury Community College next door, help develop an Islamic library there, and assist the college foundation in fund-raising.

Concern is mounting over the connections between a Boston Islamic group and a high-profile Muslim activist, Abdurahman Alamoudi, after a recent statement by the federal government that Mr. Alamoudi had a "close relationship" with Al Qaeda and that he raised money for Al Qaeda in America.

Alamoudi - who is serving a 23-year sentence in federal prison after having pleaded guilty in 2004 to participating in a Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah - is also a founder of the Islamic Society of Boston. The society is now embroiled in a bitter legal dispute over the society's efforts to build a mosque with the aid of public subsidies.

Plans for the mosque began in the 1980s. In 1989, a BRA employee, Mohammed Ali-Salaam, disclosed to the state ethics committee that he was also affiliated with the ISB; the committee accepted his involvement in the project. He remained at the BRA (he's now a deputy director) even when, according to the ISB's own newsletter, he became involved with ISB fundraising efforts. City documents indicate that he went on a ten-day trip to Dubai and Abu Dhabi in December 1999 as a city representative for the purpose of explaining Boston's land "disposition procedures" to potential donors. The BRA told The Boston Globe that Ali-Salaam "was not given permission to raise funds for the project while there." (The BRA declined to comment for this article, and declined a request for Ali-Salaam to be interviewed.) Two months later, an ISB newsletter noted that Ali-Salaam "worked hard during Ramadan to solicit funds from overseas." Ali-Salaam's role continued to be murky: A December 2000 letter signed by him and two other ISB members to the college announcing a $10,000 donation by the Muslim group--and requesting that the gift be kept anonymous--was written on BRA letterhead.

The ISB fought back. Last year, it filed a series of libel lawsuits (which have since been consolidated into one suit) against those media outlets and 14 other organizations and private citizens, including investigative journalist Steve Emerson, for defaming the group. Libel cases against the media are tough to win in the United States, and the defendants have viewed this suit as, more than anything else, a tactic to scare off questioning. All defendants filed motions to dismiss. In its filing, the Herald said that intimidating the media when it reports on controversial topics "threatens to chill the entire news gathering and reporting process." The ISB, however, considers the media's reports to be defamation and the Herald and Fox to be part of "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to intimidate ... members of the Boston area Muslim community [and] to deprive them of their basic rights of free association and the free exercise of their religion as guaranteed by the Constitution." According to Jeff Robbins, who is representing two of the defendants, lawyers for the non-media defendants based their filings on a statute that exists in Massachusetts and more than a dozen other states prohibiting frivolous lawsuits intended to quiet petitioning to government bodies--a First Amendment right--on issues of public interest.

In March 2006, the ISB showed signs of backing down--sort of. Addressing area religious groups and lawyers for the defense, the organization offered to put litigation on hold and mediate privately with defendants. But the same day, the group filed new court documents that ISB lawyer Howard Cooper said contained evidence against the suit's targets. "My client's offer of dialogue is genuine, but so is their determination to hold the defendants accountable for their campaign of intolerance and hatred," Cooper told the Associated Press at the time.