Visitors face a more difficult situation. The major types of visitors are temporary workers and students. A person granted a worker visa or a student visa may bring their spouse along. The first problem for the spouses is that they are not authorized to work in the U.S. unless they can get their own visa. The second problem is that their status depends entirely on the marriage. If they leave the marriage, they automatically become deportable because they are "out of status". The VTVPA was supposed to change that, by creating a new type of visa called the U visa. This allows victims of violence, especially gender-related violent crimes (including domestic violence) to obtain their own independent visa. Once in possession of the U visa, they can work in the U.S. and even apply for permanent resident status after a year.

There's just one problem - the government has not issued regulations yet for the U visa. Without regulations, nobody knows how to apply for this visa. John Ashcroft stonewalled for two years while immigration was handled by the Justice Department and now that immigration has been transferred to the Homeland Security Department, it appears that Tom Ridge is stonewalling too.

Now, three years later, the U visa will finally be available. It's been 7 years altogether since it was first authorized. Better late than never, I guess.

A devout Muslim, she wore a niqab -- a scarf and veil to cover her face and head except for her eyes -- Oct. 11 as she contested a rental car company's charging her $2,750 to repair a vehicle after thieves broke into it.

Judge Paul Paruk said he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave Muhammad, 42, a choice: take off the veil when testifying or the case would be dismissed. She kept the veil on.

What do Islamic scholars say? Conservative Saudi scholar Muhammad al-Munajjid, who believes that niqab is religiously mandatory, quotes the views of a number of historical scholars on this issue:

Al-Dasooqi said: " When testimony is given concerning a woman who wears niqaab (face-veil), she has to remove her niqaab. This applies in the case of marriage and other matters, such as selling, giving gifts, debts, power of attorney, and so on. This is the opinion favoured by our shaykh." (Haashiyat al-Dasooqi 'ala'l-Sharh al-Kabeer, 4/194).

It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face when she is giving testimony in court, whether she is a witness in a case or is there to witness a deal, and it is permissible for the qaadi (judge) to look at her in order to know who she is and to protect the rights of all concerned.

Shaykh al-Dardeer said: "It is not permitted to give testimony against a woman in niqaab until she uncovers her face so that it may be known who she is and what she looks like." (Al-Sharh al-Kabeer li'l- Shaykh al-Dardeer, 4/194)

Ibn Qudaamah said: "The witness may look at the face of the woman against whom he is testifying so that his testimony will speak about her in specific terms. Ahmad said: 'He cannot testify against a woman unless he knows who she is.'" (Al-Mughni, 7/459; al-Sharh al-Kabeer 'ala Matan al-Muqni', 7/348, bi haamish al-Mughni; al-Hidaayah ma'a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).

It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of a qaadi (judge) who is to rule either in her favour or against her, and in this situation he may look at her face in order to know who she is and for the sake of protecting people's rights.

The same rules that apply to giving testimony or bearing witness also apply in court cases, because they serve the same purpose. (See Al-Durar al-Mukhtaar, 5/237; Al-Hadiyah al-'Alaa'iyah, p. 244; Al-Hadiyah ma'a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).

Thus, like Sultana Freeman, Ginnnah Muhammad was being stricter than is required of her. The judge might have done better to offer a compromise such as allowing her to unveil in private in front of him and a female colleague, or something similar, but he was within his rights to ask her to unveil when giving testimony.

Interestingly, Munajjid also says that the rental car company could have asked her to unveil when having financial dealings with her:

It is permitted for a woman to uncover her face and hands when buying or selling, and it is permitted for the vendor to see her face when he hands over the goods and asks for the money, provided that this will not lead to fitnah - otherwise it is forbidden.

Ibn Qudaamah said: "If a person deals with a woman when selling or renting, he may look at her face so he knows who she is, and may go back to her when the money is due (a guarantee of the price when the deal is finalized). It was reported that Ahmad said this was makrooh in the case of a young woman, but not in the case of an old woman, and in the case where there is fear of fitnah, or where there is no need for this business deal. But in cases where it is necessary, and there is no wrongful desire, then there is no harm in it." (al-Mughni, 7/459; al-Sharh al-Kabeer 'ala Matan al-Muqni', 7/348 bi Haamish al-Mughni; al-Hidaayah ma'a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/24).

Update: In an interesting counterpoint to this story, female British lawyers win the right to wear niqab in court.

Originally published by Newsday

American Muslim women assert rights in Islamic marriage contracts
By NAHAL TOOSI
Associated Press Writer

August 24, 2006, 10:31 AM EDT

The young Muslim couple chose a path advocated by Islamic scholars concerned about women's rights: drawing up a Muslim marriage contract that takes into account modern needs.

Abdul-Razacq's agreement states that she is in charge of the household finances and that if her husband abuses her in "any dimension of wellness" she can automatically divorce him. He stipulated that he could make household decisions without interference from in-laws and other relatives.

"At the outset, we agreed these are things that are pretty important to us," said Abdul-Razacq, 29, who lives in Decatur, Ga., and married three years ago.

The contract has long been a Muslim tradition. Most, however, contain just one key provision, that of the "mahr," a gift usually of money, that the man gives the woman.

Islamic law experts who advocate for better treatment for women say the documents can help them assert rights under religious law that have long been played down by men. Advocates contend their approach is well within Islamic law, even though skeptics say the interpretation is too influenced by Western thinking.

The contract is especially useful in the United States, where Muslims come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and follow different customs and levels of observance. The document can accommodate views ranging from liberal to conservative.

Karamah, an organization of Muslim women lawyers based in Washington, is developing a "model" marriage contract that can be adjusted to meet the requirements of family law in different parts of the country, said Azizah al-Hibri, a founder of the group, whose name means "dignity" in Arabic. In the United States, civil law governs divorce, but judges have taken Muslim marriage contracts into consideration, sometimes viewing them as prenuptial agreements.

Al-Hibri, a law professor at the University of Richmond, Va., said the contracts also help couples prepare for the challenges of married life.

"Couples need to define their relationship as they enter the marriage, so that they do not get disillusioned later," al-Hibri said. "They need a meeting of the minds on what their family life will look like. The contract helps them do that by discussing the issues up front."

It's generally accepted that Islamic law gives women the right to property and financial independence within marriage. Some Muslims scholars contend women are not even obligated to do housework. These and other details about running a house can be specified in the contract.

Negotiating the agreement, "brings an air of reality and rationality to a process that is often fraught with emotion," said Aminah McCloud, professor of Islamic Studies at DePaul University in Chicago. McCloud's own marriage contract says that her husband must accompany her when she travels and that she is not obligated to cook.

Much of the negotiation involves the "mahr," whose dollar value ranges widely.

Some Muslim women consider the gift archaic in an age when women can earn their own salaries. Others, however, view it as a symbol that the man values the woman, similar to an engagement ring; it's also a gift that is hers alone.

Maryam Sayar and her husband, of Cortlandt Manor, N.Y., kept their contract simple, specifying only the "mahr." They haven't even told their families what it was.

"We both know one another so well, we have an understanding," said Sayar, 26, and a law school graduate. "I feel like there will not be any breach of any sort, because he understands my expectations of life and from the marriage as well. I similarly have an understanding of his expectations of life and marriage."

Beyond the "mahr," the marriage contract can help address concerns about certain practices allowed in Islam, even if the behavior is forbidden by U.S. civil law.

For example, polygamy is illegal in the United States, but some conservative Muslims interpret their religion as allowing a man to marry up to four women. Many Muslim brides stipulate an automatic right to divorce in their marriage contract if the man takes another wife. McCloud says that's especially important if a couple may one day live in another country.

Information about the contracts is available online, in women's magazines including Azizah, and at conventions such as the annual meeting of the Islamic Society of North America, an umbrella group for mosques and other Muslim organizations. Abdul-Razacq, who explored the contract at the insistence of her mother, consulted a book with sample documents called "Your Islamic Marriage Contract."

McCloud acknowledges the limits of the document in trying to preserve equality in such an unpredictable undertaking as marriage. But she said the contract does provide some protection if a union fails.

"There's no way to guard against the impostor, there's no way to guard against the liar," McCloud said. "But at least you have written down and witnessed something so that when you go to court to get them, you can get them. And you don't wind up on 'Judge Judy."'

The Crime of Being a Muslim Charity

By Laila al-Marayati and Basil Abdelkarim
Sunday, March 12, 2006; Page B07

Unfortunately, those of us in the American Muslim community who want to give to legitimate causes in a lawful manner are getting mixed messages from the U.S. government. We are told that if we conduct due diligence and function transparently, we should be able to give to charities of our choice. Then the government closes most of these charities, using the weakest of evidence to support its actions and leading many American Muslims to believe that our government opposes efforts to help needy Muslims around the world. Moreover, the arbitrary freezing of assets ensures that the money will never reach the destination intended by the donors -- the truly indigent. The government has consistently denied requests to have the frozen funds released to reputable organizations (that are not on any lists) doing similar work so that the donors' intentions are honored.

Under the USA Patriot Act, the U.S. government is authorized to close down a charity while an investigation is going on. The government is under no obligation to reveal the evidence used to justify the seizure of assets and the designation of the charity as a "specially designated national," i.e. a bad guy on the list of suspected terrorists issued by the Treasury Department.

The organization can file an appeal, but as was noted in a recent paper titled "Muslim Charities and the War on Terror" by the organization OMBWatch, "appealing Treasury actions to the federal courts is relatively useless, as the court's scope of review is very limited."

Since Sept. 11, 2001, six American Muslim charities have been shuttered in this fashion. The government still doesn't have a single terrorism conviction against any of the employees or board members of any of those charities. Similarly, the government has never been able to document a bona fide trail showing how money from the charity got into the hands of actual terrorists. Never.

We believe it is possible to provide sustenance to people in need without supporting terrorism. But the message we are hearing is this: "All Muslims are suspected of supporting terrorism. Your charities are guilty of this crime until proven innocent. But don't bother trying to prove your innocence because you won't have the chance." The government has not taken action against a single non-Muslim charity that works in the same region helping to feed, educate and sustain people who had also received assistance from the Muslim charities accused of financing terrorism.

We are among those American Muslims who decided that because it is our right as Americans to fulfill our religious obligation to help the needy both here and abroad, we would start a new charity. We did so in 2002 and have experienced our fair share of government harassment as a result.

None of us is interested in engaging in illegal activity; it is immoral, unethical and un-Islamic, and it serves no useful purpose whatever. Our crime is that we care about what happens to the children of Palestine. Who knows what price we will have to pay for our hot-breakfast program for hungry kids in Gaza, for our playground project in the West Bank, for our psychosocial trauma center in Hebron.

Under former attorney general John Ashcroft, American Muslim charities were closed as part of the charade to make the American people believe the government was disrupting terrorist financing. Today, under Alberto Gonzales, the message is that Muslim Americans will be punished if they want to help Palestinians. Either way the assault on our charities is not about the safety and security of the American people but about politics.

The writers, both physicians, are board members of KinderUSA, a Muslim American nonprofit humanitarian organization.

The Mail Tribune reports that the NSA was eavesdropping on privileged communications between Al-Haramain and its attorneys. The Washington Post then admitted that it had known about this since 2004 but agreed not to do anything (and they say we don't have a state-controlled media in this country).

Some useful commentary from Loaded Orygun and Orcinus

U.S. Muslims seek Treasury meeting on charities
01 Mar 2006 02:03:00 GMT

Source: Reuters

In a letter to Snow, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) said government closures of Islamic charities have hindered American Muslims' ability to carry out their religious obligation to help the needy.

The coalition of 10 organizations referred to action this month against Kindhearts, a Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic nonprofit group, whose assets were blocked pending an investigation.

The Treasury Department said Kindhearts had links to the Palestinian group Hamas, which Washington considers a terrorist organization.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, the government has designated three major U.S. Muslim charities as suspected sponsors of terrorism and frozen their assets.

Muslim charitable giving has been in the spotlight since authorities discovered al Qaeda and other militants had abused charities to fund attacks.

In the letter to Snow, AMT said most of KindHearts' frozen assets were earmarked for earthquake relief in Pakistan and for a new division in South Asia.

"Although we understand the political climate of our country and support our government's efforts to thwart terrorist financing; we find it unfair that our government has yet made another extrajudicial decision to effectively wipe-out more than five years of humanitarian assistance to the world's needy by the mere stroke of a pen," the letter said.

Molly Millerwise, a Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment on future engagements for Snow, but denied that Treasury was targeting Muslim charities.

"The charge that they've made is completely untrue. We've worked very closely with the charitable sector and specifically with the Muslim American charitable sector to safeguard charitable giving against terrorist financing," she said.

"The Treasury has issued voluntary guidelines to strengthen transparency to help ensure money intended for charitable activities does not fall into the hands of terrorists," Millerwise added.

Many Muslim charities and organizations in the United States say they feel like targets of a government "witch hunt" since Sept. 11.

Required by their faith to pay "zakat," or alms for the needy, Muslims say the U.S. government crackdown is intimidating donors.

"For a growing number of legal scholars and Islamic community leaders concerned about American courts discriminating against Muslims, al-Timimi's case is a harbinger of how Muslim believers are becoming the target of a new emerging kind of civil rights discrimination," says Jess Ghannam, former president of the Arab-American Anti-Defamation League in San Francisco.

This kind of discrimination, Ghannam says, also occurred in the case of Sami Al-Arian, a Florida professor indicted in Tampa, along with three codefendants, on 51 counts of conspiring to finance the Palestinian group Islamic Jihad. Ghannam says the trial, now in the deliberation phase, is based mostly on circumstantial evidence. As with al-Timimi, he says, the defendants' religious beliefs have become a matter of debate.

Julie Howe, a New York-based jury consultant who's been active with the Death Penalty Project, agrees with Ghannam. "I think that there's a religious prejudice out there against Muslims," Howe said in a recent interview with a legal journal. "Some jurors are inclined to believe that Muslims are predisposed to violence."

I recommend you to read the whole thing.

BTW, I really will try to post to this blog more often, inshallah, at least with news stories if not the in-depth legal analysis that I started with.

Originally published by the Washington Post

U.S. Muslim Groups Cleared
Senate Panel Finds Nothing 'Alarming' in Financial Data

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 19, 2005; Page A12

The inquiry, which took nearly two years, was highly unusual in that the committee pored through private financial information held by the government. The panel had asked the Internal Revenue Service for the financial records and donor lists of two dozen Muslim charities, think tanks and other organizations. Nine were based in the D.C. area.

"We did not find anything alarming enough that required additional follow-up beyond what law-enforcement agencies are already doing," Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman, said in a statement this week.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. government has frozen millions of dollars in assets allegedly linked to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups and shut down some of the biggest U.S.-based Islamic charities. In launching their inquiry in December 2003, Grassley and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the committee's ranking Democrat, expressed concern about "the crucial role that charities and foundations play in terror financing."

Some Muslims, however, protested that the Senate investigation unfairly cast a cloud over many groups.

"It was really just a fishing expedition," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "They didn't catch any fish."

The investigation extended to a broad swath of Muslim organizations nationwide. They included a few charities whose assets have been frozen, such as the Illinois-based Global Relief Foundation, which was designated in 2002 as a terrorist-financing entity by the Treasury Department.

Some of the groups, though, included many moderates. In September, Karen Hughes, the U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, attended the annual convention of one organization included in the investigation, the Islamic Society of North America.

Steven Emerson, a private terrorism investigator, was dismissive of the Senate inquiry, saying the committee never had the staff or expertise to do a complex terrorism-finance probe. "If they're looking for a smoking gun on a tax return, they're not going to find it," he said.

Beth Levine, a spokeswoman for Grassley, said the committee's staff was limited to investigating tax records rather than launching a broader investigation. She said the committee wanted to "understand the nature of reality on the ground -- to know something about what is going on before trying to legislate about it."

The panel determined no new laws were needed at this point, she said. No report will be issued, she added, because the probe involved confidential tax information.

Representatives of several Muslim groups that were investigated expressed relief about the result.

"We're very pleased but not surprised, as there's never been any funding of anything remotely related to terrorist activities," said Nancy Luque, an attorney for Muslim charities and institutes clustered around the Herndon area.

Wendell Belew, an attorney for a Muslim charity association, said, "We're very pleased that their examination uncovered no problems on the part of our members." His group includes two Falls Church nonprofits: the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and the Muslim World League.

Several of the organizations targeted in the inquiry remain under investigation by the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security. Some have closed down, either because of government actions or because donations have dried up.

The other nonprofits in the D.C. area that were examined in the investigation were the International Islamic Relief Organization, the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, the Islamic Foundation of North America, the United Association for Studies, and Research and Solidarity USA.

Judge Bars Terror Evidence Against Sheik
By WILLIAM GLABERSON

Published: January 26, 2005

The judge in federal court in Brooklyn, Sterling Johnson Jr., ruled that the prosecutors cannot display three items they have said are their only corroboration for secretly recorded conversations in which they say the sheik and an aide plotted to take money for terrorist organizations.

In arguing unsuccessfully to persuade the judge to change his mind, a prosecutor, Kelly Moore, said the items the judge barred yesterday were "a significant part of the government's evidence in this case."

The ruling was important because the items the judge banned were the prosecutors' only way of proving that the defendants' supposed plan to take money for Al Qaeda and Hamas was part of a long-running effort to provide financial support to terrorist organizations.

The sheik, Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad, 56, and his aide, Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed, 31 are charged with conspiracy and providing financial support for Al Qaeda and Hamas.

The ruling, which created palpable anxiety among the prosecutors, said the prosecutors cannot show jurors an application of a mujahedeen fighter for entry into an Al Qaeda training camp. The prosecutors said the application, found in Afghanistan in 2001, listed Sheik Moayad as the fighter's sponsor.

The ruling also stopped prosecutors from introducing into evidence address books taken from two Muslim fighters in Bosnia in 1996. The prosecutors said the books included entries for Sheik Moayad.

Judge Johnson said that "we don't know what the source" of the Al Qaeda application was and that the address books were from a time too remote from the alleged fund-raising by the sheik in 2003. Judge Johnson said they dated back to before Al Qaeda was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States government.

The third item he banned during the prosecution's initial presentation was a videotape of a wedding in Yemen that the prosecutors said included images of Sheik Moayad cheering about the death of Jews in a Hamas terrorist attack in Israel.

Focusing on a central vulnerability for the prosecutors, Judge Johnson noted that the videotape was taken by the prosecution's main informer, Mohamed Alanssi. Mr. Alanssi drew attention to a history that included bad debts and legal troubles when he set himself on fire outside the White House in November.

After that act, the prosecutors suggested they would not call Mr. Alanssi as a witness. Yesterday, Judge Johnson said the prosecutors could not show the wedding videotape unless Mr. Alanssi testified.

"If the informant wants to come in and testify as to what he saw and observed, I'll allow it," Judge Johnson said from the bench.

Pressed by Judge Johnson, Ms. Moore said more definitively than she has before that the prosecutors were "not planning" to call Mr. Alanssi as a witness.

In her argument, Ms. Moore noted that Mr. Zayed and, possibly the sheik, were expected to argue that they were entrapped by two informers into making the damaging statements that were secretly taped in Germany in January 2003. She said the prosecutors wanted to use the documents and the tape recordings to undercut that argument by asserting that they showed a long pattern of involvement in terrorist activities.

The prosecutors have portrayed Sheik Moayad as an important Al Qaeda financier, but in recent weeks it has appeared that their allegations about Al Qaeda have been fading in importance to the case.

Judge Johnson said the prosecutors could renew an application to have the three items admitted after the initial phase of the case when they try to rebut any defense that is advanced. But Jonathan Marks, the defense lawyer for Mr. Zayed, said the judge's legal reasons for disallowing the items would probably remain the same.

The ruling came on what was to have been the eve of the opening of the prosecution's case. But the opening statements scheduled for today were delayed because one of the sheik's lawyers, Howard L. Jacobs, was hospitalized because of a heart attack Monday morning.

Mr. Jacobs, a court-appointed lawyer, has represented the sheik for nearly two years. A month ago, another lawyer, William H. Goodman, joined in the defense.

Yesterday, Mr. Goodman asked for a delay because of Mr. Jacobs's illness. But Judge Johnson bowed to the prosecutors' request that no lengthy delay be granted, saying that Mr. Goodman was capable of carrying on.

Jury selection is to be completed this morning. Opening statements and the start of testimony is now scheduled for tomorrow.

"The harm to my client," Mr. Goodman said yesterday, "is his attorney for the past two years cannot participate in his defense."

The survey covers the issue of whether people are permitted to wear headgear in driver's license photos, if exemptions are permitted as religious accommodation, if non-photo driver's licenses are available, and how face veils are handled.

As the report notes, and as I've noted previously in this space, this is not a question that solely affects Muslims. Many Jewish men wear yarmulkes; Sikh men wear turbans. Jewish and Christian women may wear religiously-prescribed headcoverings. Additionally, a number of Christian groups (especially the Amish) have religious prohibitions against the taking of photographs. Most of the case law on driver's license photos in fact has to do with Amish or other Christian groups who don't want photos to be taken at all.

On the specific issue of face veils, three states have what I consider the most reasonable policy, allowing face veiled women to get a non-photo driver's license. These states are Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. As the survey notes, these states have large populations of Amish and other groups like the related Mennonites who have religious objections to all photos; that appears to be why they're so accommodating. My own state, Washington, allows photos in which the person has their face veiled, but then a notation is put on the license that it doesn't serve as ID. My position is, and always has been, that a face-veiled woman should be able to obtain a non-photo license as long as she is qualified to drive, and that she should obtain a separate photo ID for times when her identity needs to be verified. In a situation where it's only her authorization to drive that's at issue and not her identity, she doesn't have to display the photo unnecessarily.

Anyway, the survey is a very good overview of the law in the different states and should be a good reference for those interested in this topic.

Added: The survey led to a news story from Kentucky about its driver's license laws.

Groups to appeal

Published: Thursday, December 9, 2004

It was a fresh blow to a group of Islamic charities and others who have seen their assets frozen and in some cases found themselves under federal indictment for allegedly funding terrorist groups as part of the post-Sept. 11 war on terrorism.

The Boim case was also the first in which jurors awarded damages from U.S.-based charities accused of bankrolling Hamas, according to Boim attorney Nathan Lewin.

Joyce and Stanley Boim, who moved their family from New York to Jerusalem in 1985 for religious reasons and have long fought the case through the courts, were elated.

"I finally have justice for David," Joyce Boim told reporters. "He's up there, smiling down."

Asked what she would tell her son, she said, "We did it, David. I pinch your round face."

The jury assessed damages against the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Islamic Association for Palestine, the Quranic Literacy Institute of suburban Oak Lawn and Mohammed Salah of suburban Bridgeview.

Both sides said a hard-fought appeal battle was guaranteed.

Amer Haleem, secretary of Quranic Literacy Institute which translates Islamic texts, left the courthouse saying the case was part of a wave of anti-Muslim hysteria.

He promised there would be "a vigorous appeal."

"It may wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court," said Boim attorney Stephen Landes.

U.S. law allows victims of overseas terrorist groups to sue American organizations that finance them. The Boims maintain Islamic charities have been raising money for guns and explosives in this country while using charity as a cover.

Boim attorneys said they hoped the verdict and other cases being filed under the same law would help to choke off the flow of money to terrorist groups in the Mideast.

The government already had frozen the assets of Holy Land, Quranic Literacy and Salah.

Salah and Holy Land are both currently under federal indictment on charges of stemming from their alleged support of Hamas.

There is little likelihood that the Boims will collect anything like $156 million.

Not only are the assets of three defendants frozen by the government but federal prosecutors are asking the court in Texas to order Holy Land to forfeit its assets.

"If there's any money there, we'll get it," Landes said.

Chicago Muslims raised the possibility that the verdict could have a negative effect on contributions to legitimate Islamic charities.

"People are hesitating to give to the needy and the poor, which is a fundamental issue in the Islamic religion," said Yaser Tabbara, executive director of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Lawyers for Holy Land, Islamic Association for Palestine and Salah boycotted the trial. Veteran Chicago defense attorney John Beal, representing Quranic Literacy, was ordered to be on hand but declined to address the jury or cross-examine witnesses.

He maintained that Keys didn't give his group enough time to mount a defense.

Holy Land attorney James Fennerty and Salah attorney Matthew Piers did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment on the verdict Wednesday.

Salah has long been accused by the federal government of being a Hamas fund-raiser. He has said he is not a Hamas member, although he took the 5th Amendment when asked that question under oath in a deposition taken by lawyers for the Boim family.

A former FBI terrorism analyst who testified in the weeklong trial, Matthew Levitt, pointed to documents allegedly showing high-ranking Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook had funneled $985,000 to Salah just before he left for Israel in January 1993 at a time when Hamas had been crippled by the deportation of 400 activists to Lebanon.

Salah was arrested that month, pleaded guilty to bankrolling Hamas and spent five years in an Israeli prison. Levitt also testified that documents show in the early 1990s Saudi financier Yasin al-Kadi furnished a monthly salary to Salah and two Quranic Literacy officials.

Al-Kadi, whose name has appeared on government terrorism lists, also furnished hundreds of thousands of dollars to Quranic Literacy through a real estate developer, Levitt testified.

US family sues 'Hamas-linked' charities
By Catherine Miller
BBC News, Chicago

The family of David Boim, an American teenager shot dead by Hamas at a West Bank bus stop in 1996, is suing a group of Chicago-based organisations who they say helped fund Hamas operations.

It will be the first courtroom test of a piece of federal anti-terror legislation passed in the early 1990s, which supporters say helps strike a blow at terror support networks.

But the case has also raised concerns for the Muslim community about where support for militants ends and guilt by association begins.

'Anti-terror tool'

"This federal statute is designed to provide Americans who are injured by international terrorism a right to sue in American courts the people who are responsible - and it reaches beyond just those who pull the trigger or carry the bomb," said Rick Hoffman, an attorney for the Boim family.

"We just happen to be the first to pursue this, but hopefully this is a tool that others will be able to follow as well to cut off the funding of these sorts of terrorist attacks."

The family is seeking damages of $600m (£310m). But even if the jury awards such a vast sum, neither the family nor the lawyers may see that money because many of the organisations' assets have already been the subject of separate, government actions.

Nonetheless, according to Jewish leaders the Boim case is a positive precedent for Chicago's Jewish community, which has long harboured concerns about local Islamic charitable organisations acting as conduits for funding militants.

"This is an uphill struggle against international terrorism, and the forces of good who fight fairly now have a law in their defence that gets a measure of justice against the known supporters of terrorism," says Jay Tcath, director of the Jewish Community Relations Council.

But others are concerned that the effects of the law may not be so clear cut.

"You need to come up with a legal principle that draws the line between punishing those who support terrorism without punishing those who make honest humanitarian contributions - and that's not an easy line to draw," says Doug Cassel, head of the International Human Rights Center at Northwestern Law School.

Mr Cassel says it is important to protect freedom of association and freedom of expression.

He says charitable groups that fund organisations abroad should not necessarily be "held to a standard of strict liability for any crime that might be committed by some member of that group overseas".

Institute under scrutiny

One of the defendants in the case is the Quranic Literacy Institute.

In the basement of an unremarkable suburban house in south-west Chicago, it has built up a vast library of Arabic texts to support its 12-year project to write a new English translation of the Koran.

The Boims accuse the Institute of knowingly providing cover to a man alleged to be a key Hamas figure in the United States.

But the group's secretary, Amer Haleem, says the Institute has been "dragged into" the case for other reasons: "guilt by association and religious persecution.

"There's absolutely no connection between us and any terrorist organisation. They're depending on the fact that any Muslim can be accused of anything now and the American people will say 'By and large, well, it must be true'."

There are around 400,000 Muslims in the greater Chicago area, around a quarter of Palestinian origin. Mosques, cafes and halal butchers are dotted among the sprawling strip malls and highways of the suburbs.

"Every community now feels tainted by this broad brush stroke. Every mosque, every centre, every book publisher is now suffering [a drop in] what is being given to their organisation," says Seema Imam of the Muslim Civil Rights Center.

The Boim case, she says, undermines philanthropy, which is a pillar of the Muslim religion, and has a devastating effect on individuals and the community.

"There's an extensive amount of fear among Muslim[s]. The conversation is of confusion - how do I live in the land that I thought was the land of democracy, what do we do, how do we worship and where do we go from here?"

For the family of David Boim, this week may finally bring an end to their long search for legal reparation for a past tragedy.

But it will be many years before its clear how the legacy of his death will affect the future of America's Muslims.

Friday, November 19, 2004

14 arrested in raids by terror task force
Seattle suspects' links to al-Qaida or other groups are uncertain

By PAUL SHUKOVSKY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Now investigators must determine whether the 14 are suspects in a purely criminal case or one that has ties to international terrorism. Court documents make mentions that might indicate terrorist connections, but one federal criminal justice source said investigators have no evidence of any link to al-Qaida or any other terrorist group.

The men -- most African immigrants from the Islamic country of Gambia or African Americans who are Muslim -- face a mix of charges including immigration fraud, bank fraud and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Now investigators plan to sift through the computer hard drives, financial records and Islamic literature seized yesterday to see whether terror links emerge.

One search warrant executed yesterday at the Crescent Cut Barbershop, 7821 Rainier Ave. S., asserts that barber Ruben Shumpert conducted a group described as "an anti-American training ground for Muslims" and that Shumpert was training children ages 11 to 17 "in anti-American rhetoric, as well as training the children in how to shoot and fight the Americans."

Shumpert, also known as Amir Abdul Muhamin, is already in the King County Jail facing assault charges after being accused of beating a man who refused to join his group. That man, Bashir Hussein, told Seattle police that he saw Shumpert showing children videotapes of "fighting, shooting and killing ... with images on Shumpert's computer screen of al-Qaida and the Taliban." Charges were unsealed in federal court yesterday accusing him of possession of counterfeit money and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Agents apparently began the investigation in 2002 when an informant told FBI agents that Karim Abdullah Assalaam was recruiting participants in a bank-fraud scheme.

Assalaam allegedly told the informant -- a convicted felon who has been paid $3,000 a month by the FBI since July 2002 -- that " 'his whole Muslim crew' is involved in an ongoing bank-fraud scheme and that they are raising funds not only for personal gain, but because 'you can't go to war broke,' " according to court documents.

The documents charging Assalaam, along with Attawwaab Muhammad Fard, Ali Muhammad Brown and Herbert Chandler Sanford, with conspiracy to commit bank fraud quote a tape-recorded conversation about guns in which Assalaam tells an informant: "I just want to die as a Shaheed." The informant asks: "What's a Shaheed?" Assalaam replies: "A Shaheed is one who dies in the cause of Allah."

According to court documents, Assalaam justified his scheme to defraud banks through the use of counterfeit checks by telling a young woman with whom he was involved that it is "to help our Muslim brothers and sisters. We need to get money to get back at the Kafirs," which means people who do not follow Islam.

Despite the rhetoric, federal criminal justice sources said there is skepticism in their ranks that any of these men represent a serious terrorist threat. One of the sources involved in the case dismissed them as terrorist "wannabes."

And among a group of five Gambian immigrants charged in an alleged scheme to gain asylum in the United States through lies and fraudulent documents, there is no apparent terrorist tie enumerated in court documents.

However, the indictment naming the five men notes that a business run by brothers Bubacarr Tunkara and Muhamed Tunkara -- Gambia International -- transmits money overseas to countries that do not have advanced banking systems. Although immigrants from Muslim countries often use such informal businesses to wire money home, such businesses have been in the cross hairs of federal agents since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a potential conduit of money to terrorist groups.

But the track record of federal prosecutions of such cases has been rocky. In Buffalo, N.Y., federal prosecutors are battling a defense attorney who has asked a judge to toss key evidence in a money-transmittal case based on an allegedly illegal search. The man who ran the business contends he sent millions to Yemen solely so Yemeni immigrants could support their families back home.

And in Seattle, customs agents raided a Muslim meat market in 2002 as part of an investigation into possible terrorism links of a money-wiring service in the same building. Even though the meat market had no relation to the money service, agents stripped the food off the shelves and removed the meat, which went bad. No charges were filed, and the federal government had to compensate the market for its losses. [ed. note: these caveats in the story (in the last two paragraphs) are interesting]

Shortly after 6 a.m. yesterday, a crew of investigators from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FBI, Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Seattle police raided the Gambia International Gift Store, 4206 Rainier Ave. S. Agents took three men into custody who apparently were reciting morning prayers in a small mosque over the store, according to store clerk Dembo Hatu.

Hatu, who was born in Gambia but is now an American citizen, said yesterday that he is worried about what he sees a propensity among some people to equate Muslims with terrorists.

Asked about the men who were arrested, he said: "They are not terrorists, from what I know. I don't know a lot of information about them. But I don't think so."

Also arrested in yesterday raids were: Ahmad Abdul Salaam As-Sadiq, accused of being a felon in possession of a weapon; Jacob Santos Martinez, accused of being a felon in possession of a weapon; Zaid Mumin, accused of being a felon in possession of a weapon; Souleymane Camara, accused of conspiracy to assist immigrants in fraudulently obtaining asylum; Maudo Fofana, accused of lying in an asylum application; and Mohamed Jawara, accused of lying in an asylum application.

A U.S. magistrate yesterday ordered all the 12 people who appeared before her yesterday be held pending further court hearings. Two more defendants held in the King County Jail will be charged in federal court soon.

Informant who set himself on fire figured in at least three terror probes

By MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN
Associated Press Writer

November 17, 2004, 6:55 PM EST

Defense attorneys said Wednesday that they are re-examining Mohamed Alanssi's role in the cases against their clients, who are accused of helping fund Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida and the Palestinian group Hamas.

"This is like a shot of vitamin C in the arm," said Frank Hancock, the lawyer for a Yemeni-born man accused of illegally sending millions of dollars overseas. "Ultimately what I'm heading for is a motion for dismissal."

A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf, who filed the three cases in Brooklyn, said her office would have no comment.

Alanssi, 52, emerged from anonymity Monday when he sent suicide notes to the FBI and The Washington Post complaining that the government was treating him badly despite his assistance in trying to cut off the flow of money to terrorists.

Hours later, Alanssi set his clothing ablaze at the White House gate. He was hospitalized in serious condition Wednesday.

Alanssi was central to the probe of Ali Hassan al-Moayad, a Yemeni sheik who called himself bin Laden's one-time instructor in Islamic law and is now facing charges of supporting the al-Qaida leader.

Alanssi approached al-Moayad in a Yemeni mosque and lured him to Germany, where investigators recorded the men discussing a scheme to move hundreds of thousands of dollars from an American Muslim to al-Qaida and Hamas, according to court filings and lawyers in the case.

Al-Moayad and his assistant were arrested and extradited to the United States, where they are awaiting trial on charges of conspiring to provide material support to the terror groups.

Al-Moayad's attorney, Howard Jacobs, said Wednesday that Alanssi's allegations in his notes that the government had coerced him could weaken the prosecution.

In one note, Alanssi said he was afraid the government might jail and torture him if he stopped cooperating. He also said FBI agents told him he would "be a millionaire" and receive permanent U.S. residency in exchange for his help.

"We have people checking in Yemen on him," Jacobs said of Alanssi. "It truly can help the defense."

According to court documents, Alanssi also helped the government in its case against Abad Elfgeeh, a naturalized U.S. citizen who allegedly sent $20 million overseas illegally from his tiny Brooklyn ice-cream shop.

After al-Moayad said Elfgeeh had sent him money from the United States, the FBI dispatched Alanssi to Elfgeeh's shop on the edge of the Park Slope neighborhood in 2002, according to prosecution documents.

Alanssi asked Elfgeeh how to secretly move money overseas and recorded Elfgeeh, 49, advising him to give cash to another Yemeni sheik, whom prosecutors call an outspoken bin Laden supporter and advocate of Islamic jihad in Chechnya.

The probe of that sheik, Abdullah Satar, led to the conviction earlier this year of a New Jersey gas station owner, Numan Maflahi, who was sentenced to the maximum of five years in prison for lying to FBI agents about a fund-raising trip to Brooklyn by Satar in 1999.

Maflahi's lawyer said Wednesday he did not believe that new information about Alanssi would affect the case, because Alanssi had not testified at trial.

Soldier Guilty of Trying to Aid al-Qaida
By MELANTHIA MITCHELL Associated Press Writer

The verdict in Spc. Ryan G. Anderson's court-martial, which began Monday, was announced late Thursday afternoon.

Anderson, a tank crewman whose 81st Armor Brigade unit is now in Iraq, was accused of trying to give terrorists information about U.S. troops' strength and tactics. The terrorists he thought he was meeting with were actually undercover federal agents, prosecutors said.

A military spokesman has said the charges amount to attempted treason.

Anderson, who did not testify during the guilt phase of his trial, took the stand Thursday evening in the penalty phase and wept, apologizing to his country and his family.

"I would rather give my life" than do anything to discredit the military, he told the jury, saying he felt "really lousy" about his actions.

When the verdict was announced, Anderson's father, Bruce Anderson, reached over and placed a hand on the back of his son's wife, Erin, who cried quietly. Ryan Anderson showed no visible reaction.

The jury of nine commissioned officers from Fort Lewis deliberated about 4 1/2 hours before reaching a verdict. A two-thirds majority was needed to convict Anderson, but the vote was not immediately announced.

Jurors deliberated late into the night Thursday as they considered what sentencing recommendation to send to Lt. Gen. Edward Soriano, the base commander.

Anderson, a 27-year-old Muslim convert, could face a maximum penalty of life in prison.

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, an Army prosecutor said Anderson was clear about his intentions in cell-phone text messages, e-mails and meetings with the undercover agents.

"It shows that ... the information he has he's willing to share it with al-Qaida," Maj. Melvin Jenks told jurors.

Defense attorney Maj. Joseph Morse countered that the Army had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Anderson intended to help al-Qaida. He said Anderson's grandiose ideas, actions and tendency to ramble on were all indicative of his mental disorders.

"We're not saying he doesn't know right from wrong," Morse said in his closing argument. Rather, "it's like his good-idea filter is broken."

Psychologists testifying Wednesday for the defense said Anderson suffers from bipolar disorder, formerly called manic depression, and Asperger's syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism that impairs cognitive and social functioning.

Because of those conditions, Morse said, Anderson could not form the criminal intent needed for a guilty verdict.

In his rebuttal, Jenks said the defense was trying to shield the jury from the "real Ryan Anderson," a person he said has no empathy for others and jeopardized his fellow soldiers.

"The only person Ryan Anderson cares about is Ryan Anderson," Jenks said.

He again showed a segment of a secretly recorded videotape of Anderson's Feb. 9 meeting with the undercover agents. The clip showed Anderson telling the men he is a tank ammunitions loader and explaining how to damage the M1A1 Abrams, the Army's primary battle tank, and kill American soldiers.

"See Amir Abdul Rashid for what he is," Jenks urged the panel, using the name Anderson used in communications on extremist Web sites. "A traitor. A traitor who betrayed our country, a traitor who betrayed our Army and a traitor who betrayed our fellow soldiers."