Submit your comments on this article | |
Home Front: WoT | |
Boston: Islamic group sues scholar for libeling Muslims | |
2007-03-17 | |
![]()
Photocopies of Islamic Society of Boston IRS tax returns from 1998, 1999, and 2000 which list Qaradawi as a trustee are included as evidence in the statements of several of the defendants being sued for libel. At the same time, notarized 1993 documents from the City of Cambridge also list Qaradawi as a trustee. Lawyers on behalf of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in late February filed "friends of the court" briefs for the Islamic Society of Boston, accusing the defendants of seeking to "demonize and vilify" US Muslims. The American Jewish Congress was one step ahead, having filed a "friend of the court" brief for the David Project and other defendants last October. At the same time Georgetown University scholar John Esposito filed his own affidavit which sought to distance the Islamic society of Boston from radical Islamic groups, saying that the defendants "misleadingly attempt to suggest a link" between the ISB and Wahhabism. Suggesting he sought to set the record straight on the Islamic Society of Boston, Esposito goes on to say that he intends to correct the "gross mis-characterizations" cited by the defendants "...as their apparent excuse for attacking the ISB [Islamic Society of Boston] and its leadership." However, Emerson, who in his written statement to the court worried that Boston might be looking the other way when it came to Islamic extremists, was the subject of much of Esposito's negative comments. Emerson wrote in his affidavit that he was concerned that "Boston public officials" were worried "they may be subsidizing the significant expansion of a particularly extremist and minority sect of Islam." The ISB, meanwhile, accused the David Project of being the "hidden hand" behind another lawsuit Boston resident James Policastro brought against the ISB, alleging that the David Project used Policastro to "keep the role of the David Project hidden from the public." | |
Posted by:Fred |
#15 Perhaps a start would be for anti-CAIR to publish its documents related to discovery. Then, anyone sued by CAIR could dust them off, write in the court, and submit them. The danger they face in the Litigation Jihad is "discovery". I think the ISB is in for a rude awakening: truth isn't libel, and, as others here have indicated, discovery is a bitch. I do believe Im sensing a pattern here. There is much that needs to be discovered about Islam. A strong light needs to be shone upon their dark motives and bad intentions. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis so wisely noted: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And there is much about Islam in need of decontamination. Unfettered and permitted to run its course uninhibited, Islam may well force the West to simply sterilize it as a last resort. * "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."Examined in the light of Andrew Whiteheads accusations (shown above), CAIRs eventual withdrawal of all charges against Anti-CAIR constitutes a frank admission 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." * CAIRs founders are terrorist supporters who wrap themselves in constitutional protections while simultaneously seeking to overthrow that same document in favor of installing theocratic Sharia law. * CAIR continues to be supported by terrorist individuals, groups and countries. * CAIR intentionally manipulates the media to create an image of moderation which deceives its own domestic supporters while CAIR continues to receive funding from and contribute funding to Islamic terrorists and countries that sponsor terrorism. * CAIR intends nothing less than to subvert Americas constitutional democracy for the purpose of installing theocratic totalitarianism in the form of sharia law.How much more clear can this get? CAIR has even admitted to having terrorist ties! CAIR Admits Officials Have Ties to Islamist Terrorism If the Justice Department refuses to begin proceedings designed to outlaw and legally estop all further activities by this seditionist group of thugs, then we will know that our government is betraying us into the hands of our enemies. |
Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-17 17:32 |
#14 Also, as the Islamofacists try to copycat other social groups, it is critical to understand that it is no doubt fine and dandy with Qaradawi to be sued and fine and dandy with the ISB to sue him because it all goes to serve the "greater purpose." What is ridiculous about this is DUH there's a connection--he was on their board of trustees. |
Posted by: ex-lib 2007-03-17 16:19 |
#13 Thanks grom for the "follow the money" tip on Saudi Arabia. Bit by bit, the Islmofacists are trying to weedle their way into the legal system to garner special treatment and set themselves apart as a protected class, so that any criticism can be shuffled away as "bigotry" no matter what. Other group have successfully done this and they're just being copycats. It's true that if a group can redefine a "schema" for the general population regarding their group, they can attain a status which allows them certain entitlements and protections. Essentially, they're scanning the enemy target (us). |
Posted by: ex-lib 2007-03-17 16:16 |
#12 The airlines better have someone paying attention - this'll all come in handy. |
Posted by: anonymous2u 2007-03-17 12:39 |
#11 I think the ISB is in for a rude awakening: truth isn't libel, and, as others here have indicated, discovery is a bitch. |
Posted by: xbalanke 2007-03-17 11:44 |
#10 I have got to say that this article and the comments above are the very reason I love Rantburg!! There are people with varied knowledge that amplify what is in the news so it carries more meaning. Thanks everyone!!!! |
Posted by: sam3rd 2007-03-17 11:19 |
#9 The danger they face in the Litigation Jihad is "discovery". |
Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-03-17 11:01 |
#8 This is why you have to remember to never, ever, capitulate to this madness. |
Posted by: newc 2007-03-17 09:38 |
#7 All roads lead to Saudi Arabia --- USA's valuable ally in creating WoT. Fixed. |
Posted by: DarthVader 2007-03-17 09:05 |
#6 are you aware that last month 2007 Saudi Arabia gave CAIR $$$ 50 million for LITIGATION JIHAD? All road lead to Saudi Arabia --- USA's valuable ally in WoT. |
Posted by: gromgoru 2007-03-17 08:32 |
#5 Perhaps a start would be for anti-CAIR to publish its documents related to discovery. Then, anyone sued by CAIR could dust them off, write in the court, and submit them. |
Posted by: Jackal 2007-03-17 08:22 |
#4 I am very surprised. USA is full of non-Muslim smart people. Yet no one has tried to throw the ball in the court of ISB and CAIR. Followers of Islam in many countries is intolerant to other religions and their religious practices then they deserve the same intolerance and restrictions in this country. No freedom is allowed to any religion, organization, or people who preaches violence and intolerance. |
Posted by: Anon 2007-03-17 07:39 |
#3 Brace yourself, are you aware that last month 2007 Saudi Arabia gave CAIR $$$ 50 million for LITIGATION JIHAD? All too aware, RD. CAIR must be outlawed in the United States. Solid connections have already been established between numerous CAIR executive directors and their material support for terrorist organizations, after they had been declared as terrorist entities. CAIR recently dropped their libel case against Anti-CAIR, led by Andrew Whithead, just as it was facing a legal requirement to answer discovery documents containing some 327 requests for information, requests that would have revealed CAIR's extensive ties to international terrorist organizations. Confronted by this standard and totally expectable legal filing, CAIR modified and then subsequently DROPPED their lawsuit against Anti-CAIR. In legal circles, such an action is tantamount to either an admission of guilt or, at least, tacit admission that such disclosures would not be in their own best interests. 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]."That CAIR first legally opposed and then REFUSED to concommitantly refute the charges made by Anti-CAIR is emblematic of the judicial assault being waged by American Muslims against the excersizing of free speech when it pursues any criticism of Islam's intentions for this country. Need I remind any Rantburg readers about how the "Flying Imams" case is being defended by Omar Mohammedi, president of the New York chapter of CAIR? |
Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-17 03:07 |
#2 Boston: Islamic group sues scholar for libeling Muslimes It seems to me that one of our strengths is that we already have a great number of concerned citizens (US), who are aware of this menace posed by Muslims. Another natural strength we all have is no American appreciates a small sub-culture pushing their way in and then demanding that they be treated any differently than we are. Enough of us have kept track of the dhimmi status they ultimately demand, the intimidation tactics, the bullying of individuals who stand up to them. But the rub is [as far as i know] we do not have an easy place to go where we can just plug into an organized system where we can all do a little service, either contact other folks for service work, donate $$$, raise $$$, tend to a anti-Sharia Law blog (existing one perhaps), enemy research on Mohameds, legal foot work, contact folks who are being persecuted by CAIR etc?? Brace yourself, are you aware that last month 2007 Saudi Arabia gave CAIR $$$ 50 million for LITIGATION JIHAD? And now CAIR has begun executing the same plan here as they've successfully done in Europe inorder to subvert and undermine the spirit of our Nation and Laws too for their ends. From what I gather CAIR uses an established pattern.., it starts out by seeking special consideration for their constituency, setting up their own "cultural sensitive" systems and own inhouse dispute resolution organs in whatever designated country they land in. Muslimes always remind everyone that they are mainstream but inspite of that they remind me of a cult like Jim Jones or the Rajneesh nutroots, for sure they all give me the same kind '0 creeps. Then come the Muslime [head banging] prayer rooms, special unique handling on transportation, separate toilet, separate bathing facilities, beaches, seating arrangements in public places, Burkas for women, No face pics for ID, holidays, schools, honor killing, clitoridectomys, civil laws, criminal laws etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. It's empirical, and on the record, they've pulled this shit in every country they've squatted in, here in the West or elsewhere. I'm afraid that CAIR and the Ummah will relentlessly seek the POWER to change America's system of government in-order to suit their Laws and their Koranic vision in toto, ie Sharia Law, separate Muslime communities, special elevated status above the rest of us; we Kifurs the non-Muslimes. You don't have to be a genius to recognize that with this extra infusion $$$ from Saudia Arabia CAIR will begin to probe and intimidate [litigate] American Citizens, Corporations and American institutions. The bulling, the harassment have just begun. We must organize...;-) |
Posted by: RD 2007-03-17 01:40 |
#1 This is going to be rich. The outcome of this trial, if I understand it correctly, will be somewhat of a watershed in American Islamic affairs. Qaradawi is widely perceived as a moderate ("lightly beat your wife") Muslim. He proclaims that shaheed's DO NOT commit suicide (haram), when they detonate bomb vests in public places. As one of Islam's most respected scholars, the American and global Muslim community's support, or lack thereof, for this revolting specimen of Islamic totalitarianism will be exceptionally telling. ... the David Project used Policastro to "keep the role of the David Project hidden from the public." Policastro is responsible for exposing a sweetheart deal whereby the ISB purchased from Boston land whose worth is disputed at either about half a million or some two million dollars. 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 ...Perhaps the real question that needs to be asked is why, with in excess of some 20 million dollars worth of construction funding, did the ISB see it as so important to avoid paying even the full 2 million market price for the land involved? Hint: Jizya, the usual Muslim sense of entitlement. Further scrutiny is being centered upon the ISB due to its founder, one Abdurahman Alamoudi, as having directed funding to al Quaeda at an earlier date. 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.As it stands, the BRA (Boston Redevelopment Agency), has been a recipient of much unwanted attention for potential conflicts of interest in this case. 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.Most conspicuous of all is the slew of lawsuits filed by the ISB and their subsequent changes of position as these cases have been variously consolidated or revised. 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.Please be sure to take note of how Muslims, members of the worlds most intolerant religion, constantly seek to paint their opponents as intolerant. This sort of political misdirection should be setting off all sorts of alarms in any thinking persons head. |
Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-17 01:20 |