Counterterrorism Blog

“While it may be a cliche, the adage that history oft repeats itself is also true.” This sentence was included in the brief the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), filed on Thursday, August 18, 2007. CAIR probably has no idea how true this is.

The CAIR brief says: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) is America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group, with regional offices nationwide and in Canada and national headquarters on Capital Hill in Washington, D.C. CAIR is a nonprofit, grassroots civil rights and advocacy group, which was established in 1994 and has worked to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims in America. Through media relations, lobbying, education, and advocacy, CAIR puts forth an Islamic perspective to ensure that the Muslim voice is represented. In offering this perspective, CAIR seeks to empower the American Muslim community and encourage their participation in political and social activism.”

It then argues that an action by the government has resulted in a precipitous decline in their donations and, therefore, their ability to effectively advocate on the part of Muslim-Americans. The government's action, it is claimed, has impeded CAIR's ability to collect donations, which fundamentally affects CAIR’s ability to carry out its mission statement.

History repeating itself? Consider what happened a few years ago when the IRS disallowed a $3,500 tax deduction to a another Muslim charity. The taxpayer, a man named Orlando Allen, got stuck with an additional $676.09 tax bill. He didn’t like it. Allen chose to fight it in the U.S. Tax Court, the first step of review in federal tax controversies.

In his fascinating litigation, Allen claimed the IRS was wrong to disallow the deduction, writing “The entity to which the money was donated is an unincorporated association conducting business to further the cause of the religion of Al-Islam. All money donated was used for religious purposes.” To prove this point, Allen - who lived in Philadelphia and chose not to attend the Tax Court hearing because the IRS had not responded to the proposed factual stipulation - wrote: “The [IRS] agrees that the [the taxpayer] is entitled to all of the relief demanded in the Amended Petition and all facts and statements presented therein are true.” The Tax Court disagreed with this conclusion, though it did treat the following facts offered by Allen as true:

8. On May 1, 1973, the petitioner, Orlando R. Allen, Hajji A. R. Ahmad, Abdullah Y. Ali, Karima Ahmad and others entered into a written agreement forming thereby a Syndicate designated as 'The Capital Executive Syndicate':
. . . .

27. In August, 1975, the Petitioner, Orlando R. Allen, entered into another written agreement in order to further the objects of the Syndicate Agreement.

28. This agreement called upon the parties to said agreement, Petitioner, Orlando R. Allen (whose Muslim name is Abdullah Ali), Hajji A. R. Ahmad, Karima Ahmad and Abdullah Yunus Ali to register with the Internal Security Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Registration Section, Washington, D.C. as representatives of the International Muslim Community and to engage in acts aimed at changing U.S. Foreign Policy, under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended and said registration was filed in August 1975.

29. On September 3, 1975, a message was sent to virtually every member of The U.S. Congress and the President of the U.S. on behalf of Muslims universally in which the officials of the U.S. Government were commanded to take note of and adhere to Sections 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, et al., of Title 18, United States Code.

. . . .

66. The petitioner herein, Orlando R. Allen, and his associates Hajji A. R. Ahmad, Abdullah Y. Ali and Karima Ahmad, as members of the Capital Executive Syndicate and as Registered Foreign Agents submitted testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for inclusion in the published record of the hearings on two occasions with the following results:

(The statutes cited in the penultimate paragraph of this quote are part of the Neutrality Act, the set of laws that prohibit Americans from being involved in foreign wars. One of those statutes - 18 U.S.C. § 956 - is what Jose Padilla was found guilty of yesterday in Florida.)

The Tax Court concluded that absent some adequate explanation, these facts would require a decision sustaining the IRS disallowance of Orlando Allen’s claimed charitable deduction to “The Capital Executive Syndicate.” Why? Because they give the clear inference that Capital Executive Syndicate, which Allen co-founded and made the $3,500 contribution to, was carrying on propaganda and attempting to influence legislation. This, combined with Allen’s failure to show up at the hearing, led the Tax Court to side with the IRS in its disallowance of Allen’s claimed $3,500 deduction.

As ususal, history does not stop there. Like CAIR, the people who organized Capital Executive Syndicate were litigious, and we know more about them because of the lawsuits they filed. In addition to forming the entity in May, 1973, Hajji A.R. Ahmad and his wife Katima (also one of the Capital Executive Syndicate organizers) applied for positions as deputies in the Independent Order of Foresters, which would allow them to sell life insurance through the organization. Katima’s application was denied because of the Order’s policy of not hiring husbands and wives for the same position. Hajji, however, was hired on February 1, 1974.

During the first month of his employment, Hajji Ahmad sold policies with premiums totaling over $600,000. The Order suspected that something fraudulent was transpiring and withheld a portion of his commissions. Believing that he was being unlawfully discriminated against by the Order, in May 1974 Hajji and his wife filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging the Order with discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin. Hajji's employment with the Order was terminated as of November 1, 1974. The Ahmads had trouble finding attorneys who were agreeable to them. As a result, they suffered a number of losses in court before the case died. Ahmad v. Independent Order of Foresters, 81 F.R.D. 722, (E.D. Pa 1979). (Hajji was black Hanafi Muslim, a sect that, three years later in Washington D.C., would take control over B'nai B'rith Headquarters, the Islamic Center, and the District Building, seizing more than 130 hostages, murdering one man, wounding numerous others, holding the hostages at gunpoint for nearly 39 hours, and repeatedly threatening them with execution by beheading. Hajji was not involved in that incident. Khaalis v. U.S.,408 A.2d 313 (D.C. 1979)).

In January 1975, Hajji Ahmad was convicted in state court, and placed on probation for two years. On January 19, 1976, Ahmad received permission from his probation officer to travel to Washington, D. C. in order to file an action in the federal district court there. He made the trip and, upon his return, sought permission “to return to Washington in connection with the prosecution of” the action he had filed. The probation officer denied this request and stated that no other travel permits would be issued to him. Ahmad then filed an action in federal court against his probation officers, and the Pennsylvania Probation Board, claiming anti-Muslim discrimination. It was dismissed. Ahmad v. Burke, 436 F.Supp. 1307(E.D. Pa. 1977)

What about the lawsuit Hajji Ahmad got permission to travel to Washington D.C. to file? The defendants were the American Bar Association; the Philadelphia Bulletin; the Associated Press; Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.; the New York Times, United Press International; WPVI-TV; KYW Radio and Television; CBS Inc. and Vin Burke, the assignment editor of WCAU-TV; the American Society of Newspaper Editors; the American Newspaper Publishers Association; the National Newspaper Publishers Association; and the Wall Street Journal, and various U.S. government officials. Ahmed later amended it to add several other defendants: President Anwar El Sadat of Egypt, Yassir Arafat of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, King Khaled of Saudi Arabia, President Hafez Assad of Syria, King Hussein of Jordan, President Mohammar Ghaddafi of Libya, Colonel Houari Boumedienne of Algeria, and Prime Minister S. K. Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh.

The suit asked the court compel the United States Government to adhere to the Constitution and laws of the United States in the conduct of its foreign policy toward the State of Israel. It asked the court to redress alleged violations of Ahmad's federal constitutional rights and of his federal and state statutory rights. It requested that the court compel the prosecution of those who have allegedly violated his rights, and that the court compel the news media to cease suppressing information about alleged wrongdoing by the United States Government. Among its allegations was that World Zionism had captured the press in the United States and systematically suppresses news that was favorable to the Muslim or Arab cause. (This sounds eerily like the language in the recent CAIR brief.) The court had no trouble rejecting Ahmed's lawsuit:

In the first place, the complaint is as vague and conclusory in its allegations about these defendants as it is in its allegations about the defendants I have discussed above. Because the complaint fails to allege specific facts about these defendants, it must be dismissed

Ahmad v. Levi, 414 F.Supp. 597 (E.D. Pa. 1976).

Hajji Ahmad eventually sued the U.S. Supreme Court, which is to say he named the clerk as a defendant, in a fresh lawsuit. The Court declined to review his cases. Ahmad v. Rodak, 442 U.S. 914, 99 S.Ct. 2832, 61 L.Ed.2d 281 (1979).

This overlooked Islamic legal history from over 30 years ago suggests a problem for Muslim charities that involve themselves in propaganda and politics, if history does indeed repeat itself. Unlike Ahmad's Capital Executive Syndicate, CAIR has managed to be treated as a charity for years, and has achieved recognition under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Yet its operations - its self-proclaimed political activities, its strange use of litigation (CAIR actually sued a sitting U.S. Congressman for libel) - suggests that it might be as much of a charity as the Capitol Executive Syndicate claimed to be. Of course, the latter entity claimed to be organized solely for religious purposes and did something CAIR has never done - it acknowledged that it was acting as an agent of a foreign power and was required to register with the Department of Justice. CAIR denies that it is an agent of a foreign power, and it does not claim to work solely for religious purposes.

In judging how serious CAIR’s latest legal salvo is, one should consider this overlooked history of Hajji A.R. Ahmad, the charity he tried to form, and what he tried to obtain through the American legal system. One should also consider the opinion by the late Hon. Leon Higginbothom Jr. (no slouch when it came to recognizing civil rights and constitutional deprivations), rejecting Ahmad’s weird lawsuit seeking to stop the U.S. and several newspapers from participating in the World Zionist Conspiracy.

Given the barrage of pleadings and allegations that the primary plaintiff has filed, it is evident that he does not lack zeal as to those issues about which he feels strongly. Nevertheless, it is clear that he has totally misconceived the role of the judiciary in our federal system. The relief he seeks would require this Court to assume direction of the foreign policy of the United States and to violate the First Amendment by abridging the constitutionally protected editorial discretion of the defendant news media. Some cases simply do not belong in federal court; this is one of them. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action; they have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; they have not described with adequate specificity the conduct they complain of; and they have not exhausted their federal administrative remedies against the defendant broadcasters. For these reasons, their action must be, and is, dismissed with prejudice against all defendants

So CAIR may indeed be right. History may repeat itself. Unfortunately, this history is not always kind to people who try to promote political causes under the banner of charitable organizations, or alter foreign policy through litigation against the United States and the press.