CAIR

6 imams, Aviation Security, CAIR

NY lawmaker blasts imams’ attorney

by  • 

New York State assemblyman Rory Lancman has called for the CAIR lawyer representing the ‘Flying Imams’ to resign from New York City’s Human Right Commission. Mr. Mohammedi filed suit on behalf of the imams against the “John Doe” passenger who reported their suspicious activities. As you read the excerpts from the following Washington Times story, wonder along with me whether Mr. Mohammedi’s prejudice favors terrorists in general or just his foolish clients:

The lawyer representing six imams who are suing an airline and unknown “John Doe” passengers should be removed from his position as a New York City commissioner on human rights, said a state assemblyman.

“When it comes to suspicious or potentially terrorist activity, New Yorkers are encouraged to say something if they see something,” said Rory I. Lancman, assemblyman from Queens. “Before they do so, I think they have a right to know that they won’t be sued by their own human rights commissioner, Omar Mohammedi,” said Mr. Lancman. Mr. Lancman has asked Mayor Michael Bloomberg to demand that Mr. Mohammedi to resign his seat.

Stu Loeser, Mr. Bloomberg’s spokesman, said Mr. Mohammedi is an unpaid employee on the commission and has the right to choose his clients. Mr. Bloomberg in 2002 appointed Mr. Mohammedi to the commission, which enforces the city’s human rights laws, holds hearings and investigates complaints of racial, religious and ethnic discrimination. It also is empowered to make recommendations to the mayor.
…
The imams say they were discriminated against because of their religion, and that bias prompted passengers to wrongly report the imams had asked for unneeded seat-belt extenders, moved about the cabin and made critical remarks about President Bush and the war in Iraq, or that they sat in a seating pattern that resembled the formation taken by September 11 hijackers.

Mr. Loeser said “the mayor supports protecting the people’s rights to report suspicious activities, including the bill sponsored by his good friend, Representative Pete King.”

Mr. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, is pushing legislation that has received initial House approval to protect people from being sued if they report suspicious behavior that might be linked to terrorism. Mr. Lancman said he will introduce similar legislation in the New York State House.

Mr. Mohammedi also is quoted as saying Mr. Lancman should quit, “manipulating the emotions of the public to target a segment of the community.”

The nineteen hijackers indiscriminently murdered men, women, and children of all races and religions on 9/11. If anything, our nation’s aviation security measures have strained to refrain from targeting the typical terrorist, relatively young male Muslims, ranging in age from the early twenties to mid-30’s. I have yet to read where the 6 imams were subject to additional screening prior to boarding the November 20, 2006, US Airways Flight 300.

The formal prayers in the gate area and louder than conversational Allahu Akbar’s as they boarded surely brought attention the 6 imams could have avoided. Yet it was a combination of switched seats, seating reminiscent of the 9/11 hijackers, three imams who are not obese requesting seatbelt extenders with buckles that could be used as weapons, and anti-Bush administration conversations aboard the plane that alarmed passengers. Those reported observations, taken together, worried the crew and a pilot who is responsible by law for safety so the plane was held for further security screening.

Who was manipulating the emotions aboard Flight 300? Having since heard and seen several of the imams speaking in public, it seems to me that men with Middle-Eastern features and accents drew a lot of attention to themselves that night.

While licensed lawyers rightfully advocate for their clients, launching what appears to be an exploratory and intimidating bigot hunt by lawsuit is what brought Human Right Commission Member Omar Mohammedi attention he could have avoided.

Did I mention the 6 imams’ legal bills are being paid by CAIR after it received millions of dollars in donations from the Middle East? That money was allegedly meant to promote understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims. Unfortunately, some of it had to be used to file lawsuits instead. Shame on me for almost ignoring the obvious.

6 imams, American jihad, CAIR, Islamofascists, Political wind

Air ‘Islam vs. Islamists’; let people decide

by  • 

As we mentioned Wednesday, the critically acclaimed producer of Islam vs. Islamists says PBS cancelled it’s airing for political reasons, in what seems like an attempt to silence Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an outspoken critic of CAIR, the ‘Flying Imams,’ and the politicalization of America’s mosques. What is really behind the pulling of Islam vs. Islamists is it strikes too close to home. The radicals are right here in America and there is a growing Muslim voice of those who oppose them. That larger majority had to be silenced while CAIR and the radical imams seek their hidden agenda: the imposition of sharia law.

The Washington Times weighed in heavily, yesterday:

The stories speak for themselves when allowed to, but since the documentary is not yet available publicly, here’s a preview. Naser Khader in some respects is the heart of the film’s several threads. This Syrian-born Danish lawmaker’s life has been threatened for recommending (among other things) that would-be Islamists who want to establish Shariah in Denmark should move to Saudi Arabia. At issue is the alarming number of Muslims in Islamic communities in Western Europe and North America who expect to be governed by Islamic law in lieu of the established civil and criminal law in their new country. For simply asking the question, Mr. Khader’s life is imperiled. He is filmed travelling with heavy security.

There’s Mohamed Sifaoui. This Paris-based journalist risked his life filming an undercover expose on terrorists and extremists, including the covert filming of terrorists who vow to murder Mr. Khader if he ever reaches high office in Denmark. Mr. Sifaoui himself knows terrorist violence well. The Algerian newspaper he worked for years ago was bombed by militant terrorists moments after he left the building.

Or Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, the head of the Arizona Medical Association who condemns terrorist violence in a forum for democratic ideas, which he founded. He is depicted in the local newspaper, the Muslim Voice, as a rabid dog devouring innocent Muslims. There are others.

What distinguishes “Islam vs. Islamists,” beyond these stories of the embattled, is its access to and portrayals of critics, including violent ones, and the critics of like-minded moderates elsewhere. We are shown, inter alia, Abu Laban, the imam and late critic of Mr. Khader who toured the Middle East with cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed depicted as a pig to whip up resentment over the Danish cartoon controversy. Mr. Laban, who died of cancer in February, admits on camera that the cartoons he flourished for the maddened Islamist crowds never appeared in the newspaper Jyllands Posten. He is quoted denying that the terrorists filmed by Mr. Sifaoui vowing to kill Mr. Khader — his own associates — meant it is seriously. The threat “was a joke.” Some joke.

We see two men at intellectual and literal war with the West, the imprisoned Said Mansour, a Moroccan-born Dane, sentenced to three and a half years in prison on charges of propagandizing for terrorism, and Slimane Abderrahmane, the Algerian-born Dane held at Guantanamo for two years, who trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Abderrahmane tells his interviewer that the moment a Muslim enters the Danish parliament he ceases to be Muslim, since only Allah can make law.
…
There will be legitimate criticism of this film. The haunting music which overlays the words and images of terrorist sympathizers is at times a bit overpowering. The lines are often less than clear distinguishing Muslims who may be sympathetic to Islamists and those who are not. Many Muslims themselves are not clear on this. This is one of the chief unresolved issues of Islam in the West today. Rather than bottle up this subject, we should let it loose.

“Islam vs. Islamists” is hard-hitting. Some will consider it biased. We don’t. The American people are grown up. They can handle it.

Who cannot ‘handle it’ are the radical leadership at the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), their allies in Congress, and the latter’s political puppets at PBS who decided to pull Islam vs. Islamists. They want both Muslims and non-Muslims to maintain the ignorant belief that CAIR, after receiving millions of dollars from foreign sources and provided the lawyers for the “Flying Imams,’ is the moderate voice of America’s Muslims.

They cannot tolerate a comparison of what the American Islamic Forum for Democracy professes and the intimidation tactics used against them, right here in America. PBS is federally funded to provide the public with information and in furtherance of free speech yet apparently it does not want the public to know that 5 of the 6 ‘Flying Imams’ promote political action while leading the faithful in prayer in mosques near to Dr. Jasser.