by David Meir-Levi | FrontPageMag.com | November 4, 2011
Earlier this year the present writer exposed the plans of prominent Muslim professionals and academics in the USA to exploit the American legal system by filing lawsuits, even frivolous ones, that would serve primarily, no matter what the merits of the case, to bring to the attention of the public the plight of the Palestinians and the evils of their Zionist oppressors. Such exploitation of our legal system by American Muslims and their supporters for political goals, now known as “lawfare,” is not limited to the politics of the Arab-Israel conflict. For almost a decade, Muslim political action committees and other Muslim social and legal organizations have exploited our court system with lawsuits about alleged religious or racial discrimination against Muslims.
The entry “Muslims sue” into Google brings up a surprisingly long list of references to individual Muslims or Muslim organizations, such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), that are suing a variety of individuals, employers, airlines, theatres, school districts, states, universities and even the FBI for religious discrimination or harassment.
Certainly some suits are legitimate, but some look very much like they are frivolous, intended only to harass the accused and create a substantive or at least symbolic victory for Islam.
Here are a few examples:
Muslim tenants harass an Anaheim apartment manager then sue when the manager evicts them.
Muslim neighbors sue an Austrian retiree for yodeling while mowing his lawn.
Muslim female employees sue Abercrombie and Fitch over their right to wear a hejab despite the fact that the hejab violates the A&F dress code.
Muslim female employees sue McDonalds over its dress code which is incompatible with the hejab, and later add to their lawsuit the demand that the McDonalds store in which they work should serve no bacon.
Muslim female workers sue Disneyland because the Disneyland costume dress code does not accommodate the hejab. These workers were offered jobs in Disneyland concessions that did not require a costume, but refused.
Female Muslim workers at a Whirlpool appliances plant sued because they were fired due to their demand for prayer breaks during work time. It is important to note that there is no fixed schedule for when the Islamic 5 prayers per day must be said, so one could pray five times a day before and after work.
The “flying imams” incident on US Airways flight 300 on 11/20/06 still reverberates as the lawsuit, filed by the imams and resolved in 2009, threatens to imperil anyone who alerts authorities to a Muslim’s suspicious behavior.
The Fox Theatre in Atlanta was already booked for the date that a Muslim group wanted; but the group sued anyway, alleging religious discrimination because they were denied the right to have a post-Ramadan party there on 9/11/2010.
A teacher read a Christmas story to her fourth-grade elementary school class in a Delaware public school and Muslim parents sued the entire school district for endorsing Christianity and creating a hostile environment for Muslims.
Two days after Oklahoma passed a law banning Shari’ah (Islamic religious law) in state courts (with 70% voting in favor of the ban), CAIR filed a lawsuit against the state claiming religious discrimination. Space does not permit a debate regarding the merits of the Oklahoma law or the CAIR lawsuit, but it is important to recall that injecting Shari’ah law into the secular legal arena is one of the means whereby Islamist terrorist organizations have successfully created the legal environment allowing Muslim supremacist organizations to establish their own fiefdoms in England and France. The demand for Shari’ah law in secular courts is a “calling card” for Islamist terrorist infiltration.
GWU Law School Professor John Banzhaf has filed a complaint with the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights against the Catholic University of America for displaying Christian crosses in its classrooms, something that Banzhaf describes as an act of malice against Muslim students. This complaint has been filed without Muslim participation. Muslim students at Catholic U. have made no complaints, and deny having complained to Banzhaf.
One can only wonder about Banzhaf’s motivation for this lawsuit.
Los Angeles Muslim groups, with the assistance of the ACLU, have filed suit against the FBI, claiming that FBI surveillance of their mosques and other meeting places is a violation of their civil rights, freedom of religion, and rights to privacy. US Attorney General Eric Holder has invoked state secrets rules in order to prevent information about the lawsuit from being released.
It may be impossible to determine how many of the suits in this litany of complaints are legitimate, and how many are examples of Muslim lawfare intended to incrementally advance the cause of Islamist jihad and Shari’ah law in the USA, much as has been done in Europe. But it is frightening to note that the legal initiative against the FBI may be having a rather salacious effect upon our Department of Justice (DOJ).
As part of the George Washington University’s conference on “Confronting Discrimination in the Post-9/11 Era,” Department of Justice officials convened a meeting on October 21, 2011, with leaders of several national Muslim organizations and other American Muslims who demanded that the DOJ cut back federal anti-terror funding to state and local law enforcement organizations, rewrite FBI agent manuals to remove references that connect “Islam” and “Muslims” with terrorism, and create a legal basis for the definition of “U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam” as racial discrimination.
One might think that demands to reduce our nation’s ability to defend itself against terror attacks, to obfuscate the glaringly obvious connection between Muslim terrorists and Islam, and especially to curtail freedom of speech would be met with incredulity and rejection. But one would be wrong.
Tom Perez, head of the DOJ’s division of civil rights, enthusiastically endorsed these demands and urged the attendees to “…continue to have the open and honest and critical dialogue…” that took place at the meeting. He took myriad notes and asserted that he had some “concrete thoughts” about how to address these demands.
No one at the meeting raised any objection to the demand for restrictions on freedom of speech!
No one from the DOJ expressed any concern that one of the most outspoken Muslim representatives at the meeting was the Imam Mohammed Majid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim lobbying group accused of having close ties with Islamic terror organizations. The Justice Department named ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial – the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history. In a post-trial opinion, a federal judge ruled that prosecutors had provided “ample evidence” to support ISNA’s involvement in the conspiracy to underwrite terrorism, and he refused ISNA’s petition to remove its name from the list of co-conspirators.
The putative justification for the outrageous demands made by the Muslim representatives was the assertion that “…Americans’ fear of Islamists’ bombs has evolved into racism towards dark-skinned men” and “…the word ‘Muslim’ has become racialized.” One Muslim spokesperson went so far as to say that people in the USA are teaching that “..all Muslims are a threat to the country…” and that criticism of Islam is “religious bigotry and hate.” None of the Muslim spokespersons offered any evidence for these assertions, nor did the DOJ participants request any.
Ironically, the FBI’s own statistics show that hate crimes against Muslims amount to less than 8% of religious hate crimes in the USA. The latest statistics, for 2008 indicate that there were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008 (the last year for which the FBI reports identify victims of religious hate crime by religion). Of these:
- 65.7 percent were anti-Jewish. (1055 crimes)
- 13.2 percent were anti-other religion. (191)
- 7.7 percent were anti-Islamic. (105)
- 4.7 percent were anti-Catholic. (75)
- 4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.(65)
- 3.7 percent were anti-Protestant. (56)
- 0.9 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. (Based on the FBI’s Table 1for hate-crime statistics) (14)
No one at the meeting pointed out the discrepancy between the FBI’s statistics and the near-hysteria of the wildly exaggerated assertions of Imam Majid and others about the anti-Muslim atmosphere in America, nor did anyone point out that no FBI training material, nor anything anywhere else in the DOJ, has ever asserted that all Muslims are a threat to our country.
Shortly after this meeting, in a gloating sermon on his ISNA website, Imam Majid crowed that the DOJ has acknowledged the accuracy of his accusations and will purge the FBI training manuals of their offensive anti-Islamic diatribes. He clearly felt that he had won a meaningful victory.
None of this makes any sense.
If these DOJ officials were committed to stamping out hate crimes, they should look first into the hate-crimes against Jews, which made up almost two-thirds of all hate crimes in 2008. If these DOJ officials were consistent with the DoJ’s own actions toward Muslim organizations tied to terror groups, they should never have invited ISNA representatives to the meeting. If these DOJ officials were committed to the defense of the USA against terrorist enemies, they should have spoken out when Muslim representatives ranted about fictitious Islamophobia in FBI training materials and in American society at large. If these DOJ officials honored the sacred American tradition of freedom of speech, they should have dismissed demands for the criminalization of that freedom when criticism of Islam is involved.
But they did not.
Is the DOJ intimidated by the recent Los Angeles Muslim organizations law suit against the FBI?
Or is it possible that these DOJ officials were acting on the directives of President Obama; directives made official only a few days ago, which require that FBI training materials be purged of anything that might portray Islam as somehow related to terrorist violence, and that any investigation of the beliefs, motives and goals of jihad terrorists be considered off-limits?
What reason could Obama have for banning the truth about jihad terrorism and Muslim terrorist? Surely he must know that his directives merely open the door for increased jihadist activity in the USA. Imam Majid has indeed won a victory, and with Obama and the DOJ on a crash course with reality, he has no reason to do anything other than strive for more such victories.