These are the Muslims we should be supporting

[rand0m]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070321-120653-3610r.htm

Muslims offer to help 'John Does' sued by imams

Lawyers and a Muslim group say they will defend at no cost airline passengers caught up in a lawsuit between a group of imams and U.S. Airways if the passengers are named as "John Does" and sued for reporting suspicious behavior that got the Muslim clerics booted from a November flight.
The six imams are suing the airline, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the unnamed "John Does" to be named later, for discrimination, saying they were removed from the flight for praying in the airport.
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy -- a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site (www.aifdemocracy.org) -- told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams.
"It's so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel," said Dr. Jasser. "But I hope it doesn't get to that point because the backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."
The lawsuit specifically cites two passengers who stared at the men as they prayed, then made a cell phone call that the imams say went to U.S. Airways to complain about the prayer.
Gerry Nolting, whose Minnesota law firm Faegre & Benson LLP is offering to represent passengers for free, says the judicial system is being "used for intimidation purposes" and that it is "just flat wrong and needs to be strongly, strongly discouraged."
"As a matter of public policy, the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] presently tells traveling passengers to report suspicious behavior as part of its homeland security program," Mr. Nolting said. "This has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but trying to intimidate and discourage reporting of suspicious behavior and [also discourage] the promotion of safe travel."
Tom Malone, another Minnesota lawyer offering his services pro bono, says the lawsuit is "a very overt attempt to intimidate people" and "coerce them into silence."
Appearing yesterday on Fox News, Dr. Jasser told Neil Cavuto, "Americans are going to be more afraid of Arabs and the Muslim community for fear of being sued. Why spend money on litigation when we should be spending it on fighting terrorism?"
Passengers and the flight crew say the imams were disruptive, did not take assigned seats, asked for seat-belt extensions they didn't need, loudly criticized the war in Iraq and President Bush, and shouted about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The men were escorted off Flight 300 to Phoenix, handcuffed briefly, searched and questioned for several hours by airport police and members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
The imams' lawyer, Omar Mohammedi, will not comment on his case except to say that the John Does, who could also be airline employees, will not be determined until the lawsuit enters the discovery process.
Airport commission spokesman Pat Hogan declined to comment on the lawsuit, except to say, "We believe the airport police appropriately responded to U.S. Airways' call for assistance. That is what we have contended all along and that is still what we believe."

[_Joe]

If it's true what was said about them being disruptive on the plane, then kicking them off might be justified. I wonder if some of the claims may be exaggerated though. I mean, it sounds like they were TRYING to get thrown off the flight.

[chalupa]

Yeah -- it sounds like they made a spectacle of themselves.

Someone in another thread posted something along the lines of...if we go to foreign countries, we would try to avoid standing out like sore thumbs and would try to adhere to local custom.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to pray, but given the events of the past few years, did they not expect to get looks? Did they not expect to raise suspicion?

I believe there is something in the Constitution that says you are free to worship whom or whatever you want, but it doesn't stipulate that it can happen in wierd ways that freak other people out. My point -- why couldn't they be a little more conscious of their behavior and how it would impact other people?

I hope the people that don't want to be named are not.

[Asbestos Crayon]

Not to mention it is out of the ordinary to name an outside party in a lawsuit which does not have athority of the situation, nor do they have deep pockets. It sounds to me like the lawsuit is completely made out of a need for retribution and not out of financial loss. It would be interesting at the least to hear the arguements, but I doubt the judge will be very happy with the claims.

[Quick_Draw21]

From what I heard about it was that a few them were praying quietly in a corner and one had requested a wider belt (he is fat). Plus the newspapers initially stated that they were on the plane when in actuality they were in the airport when they prayed.

I think the guy who complained was just scared because he saw6 guys with beards but with all the enhanced security I don't think they should have been kicked off.

Also the airlines refused to give them another flight which is what they were most pissed off about and frankly I think rightfully so. Not to mention they were taken off the plane in handcuffs which is pretty insulting especially when you've done nothing wrong.

[Kazimierz]

Praying in the airport? No problem

Passengers and the flight crew say the imams were disruptive, did not take assigned seats, asked for seat-belt extensions they didn't need, loudly criticized the war in Iraq and President Bush, and shouted about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Fine, and a perfectly reasonable response would be removing them from the aircraft. If accurate. But the same asshats who exaggerated the "threat" of them praying, probably didn't stop there with the exaggerations. If they acted like the article reports, good, get off.

[chalupa]

UPDATE: Those passengers have been named in a lawsuit by the imams.

They were looking for this fight from the start, the whiny little bitches. I get sick of these kinds of people pretty damn quick.

[J.T.]

Praying in the airport? No problem



Fine, and a perfectly reasonable response would be removing them from the aircraft. If accurate. But the same asshats who exaggerated the "threat" of them praying, probably didn't stop there with the exaggerations. If they acted like the article reports, good, get off.

Dude, I work for US AIRWAYS. I see muslims that work IN The airport pray all the time. I see passengers pray all the time. New York flights have a lot of Muslims. Never does ANYBODY get all jittery and suggest that they are terrorists because they don't.

Either these people WERE up to something, or you had some ignorant fools that got all uptight because they are Muslim and praying.

I'll ask some members of upper management and see what they say. Hell, I could ask our CEO the next time he flies out to Washington, I see him all the time.

[Knoodle]

Praying while Muslim in an airport is not a crime. It should be made one though.... people would feel so much safer.

[rand0m]

From what I heard about it was that a few them were praying quietly in a corner and one had requested a wider belt (he is fat). Plus the newspapers initially stated that they were on the plane when in actuality they were in the airport when they prayed.

I think the guy who complained was just scared because he saw6 guys with beards but with all the enhanced security I don't think they should have been kicked off.

Also the airlines refused to give them another flight which is what they were most pissed off about and frankly I think rightfully so. Not to mention they were taken off the plane in handcuffs which is pretty insulting especially when you've done nothing wrong.

You know it would help you to read the article first, it might save you looking like an asshat next time.

[Quick_Draw21]

You know it would help you to read the article first, it might save you looking like an asshat next time.

I did read the article and I just stated something I read somewhere. If anything your response to my initial post is the one stained with asshattery.

[rand0m]

Hmmm, the article at the stop clearly states half the passengers and flight staff where worried about their behavior.

They wheren't just 'praying in the corner' like many Muslims do, they where been loud, aggressive and just plain suspicious.

[Quick_Draw21]

Hmmm, the article at the stop clearly states half the passengers and flight staff where worried about their behavior.

They wheren't just 'praying in the corner' like many Muslims do, they where been loud, aggressive and just plain suspicious.

this is straight from your article

The lawsuit specifically cites two passengers who stared at the men as they prayed, then made a cell phone call that the imams say went to U.S. Airways to complain about the prayer.

[_Joe]

this is straight from your article

But considering their behavior on the plane any cries of prejudice can be thrown out of the window... if they really did behave that way.

[rand0m]

this is straight from your article

That is what the 4 highly biased Imams have stated ... :squint:

The remaining passengers and flight crew all stated somthing different ... :squint:

Anyhow an update

Seems like the Imams get nasty when people stand up to them

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070330-114945-6888r.htm

A group of imams suing US Airways for discrimination amended their lawsuit this week to target only the "John Doe" passengers who they say are racist and falsely accused them of behaving suspiciously.
The six imams were removed from a flight in Minneapolis in November for disruptive behavior reported by passengers and members of the flight crew.
The lawsuit filed earlier this month targeted "passengers who contacted US Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of plaintiffs performing their prayer at the airport terminal."
The amended lawsuit identifies possible John Does as individuals who "may have made false reports against plaintiffs solely with the intent to discriminate against them on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity and national origin."
"The only individuals against whom suit may be raised in this litigation are those who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them," Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a letter this week to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm. The Becket Fund had publicly condemned CAIR for supporting the case.
"The imams will not sue any passengers who reported suspicious activity in good faith, even when the 'suspicious' behavior included the imams' constitutionally protected right to practice their religion without fear or intimidation," Mr. Nihad said. "When a person makes a false report with the intent to discriminate, he or she is not acting in good faith."
The imams are being represented by New York lawyer Omar Mohammedi in the lawsuit, which has triggered an outcry among lawyers who say they will defend the "John Does" for free.
Becket Fund Chairman Kevin Hasson criticized the amended changes in a letter to CAIR on Thursday.
"There is no way Mr. Mohammedi can possibly determine whether the John Does 'knowingly made false reports' against his clients 'with the intent to discriminate against them' without taking their testimony under oath, at least during pretrial discovery," Mr. Hasson said.
"That prospect alone, of being dragged into court proceedings, will certainly provide a great disincentive for other citizens to come forward with their own suspicions," he said.
The case prompted House Republicans on Tuesday to insert a shield law for "John Does" into a rail safety bill. The legislation would protect passengers against lawsuits for reporting suspicious behavior that foreshadows a terrorist attack.
It is "unconscionable" that those who report suspicious activity could be "terrorized in our own court system in our own country," said Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, who introduced the measure.
"Religious liberty is not absolute," Mr. Hasson said. "It must yield before the government's legitimately compelling interests. And the prevention of terrorism aboard airlines is certainly such an interest."
The Becket Fund labeled the case "legal terrorism," which Mr. Awad said "only adds to the empty and sensationalistic rhetoric of those who seek to disparage and demonize a segment of our society."
"It was not meant as an insult," Mr. Hasson said. "I think the public outcry over the targeting of the John Does proves the point I was trying to make. That legal tactic is self-defeating."

They are now solely attacking the Passengers and labeling them racist.

[_Joe]

That is what the 4 highly biased Imams have stated ... :squint:

The remaining passengers and flight crew all stated somthing different ... :squint:

Anyhow an update

Seems like the Imams get nasty when people stand up to them

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070330-114945-6888r.htm



They are now solely attacking the Passengers and labeling them racist.
Weren't there people in the terminal who called ahead of time to report their prayers? I agree that their behavior on the plane was very irrational and possibly meant to insite such a reaction, but they are suing the people who said they reported them praying.

I think that this case should be thrown out, since it may discourage people from reporting borderline suspisious activity. Actual terrorists don't usually look suspicious until they are about to attack, so a judgement for the plaintiffs would discourage the reporting of even more subtle suspicions, possibly stopping attack prevention.

[rand0m]

We don't even know if the people in the terminal actually phoned the airlines ...

[_Joe]

We don't even know if the people in the terminal actually phoned the airlines ...

The lawsuit specifically cites two passengers who stared at the men as they prayed, then made a cell phone call that the imams say went to U.S. Airways to complain about the prayer.

True, the Imams were only speculating that they called the airlines, I misread that.

Well then the case should probably be thrown out.