US to seize mosques, skyscraper tied to Iran
posted at 9:30 am on November 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The US has long barred Iran from conducting any business in this country, ever since the sacking of our embassy in Tehran and kidnapping of its personnel for 444 days. However, the US suspects that Iran has used a front company, Alavi, to acquire hundreds of millions in assets in the US, including a New York City skyscraper and four mosques. The federal government has filed to seize these assets, which appears to indicate that the outstretched hand will contain … a subpoena:
In what could be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, federal prosecutors sought to take over four U.S. mosques and a New York City skyscraper owned by a Muslim organization suspected of being controlled by the Iranian government.
Prosecutors on Thursday filed a civil complaint in federal court against the Alavi Foundation, seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets.
The assets include bank accounts; Islamic centers consisting of schools and mosques in New York, Maryland, California and Houston; more than 100 acres in Virginia; and a 36-story Manhattan office tower. Confiscating the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which the U.S. government has accused of bankrolling terrorism and trying to build a nuclear bomb.
The assets are run by the Alavi Foundation, which Michelle notes has another interesting mission — it sends Korans to prison inmates, which seems a little incongruous for a simple property management company. There’s nothing illegal about that, but there is something illegal with sending millions of dollars in rental income to Iran through a front company, Assa Corporation, to Iran’s Bank of Melli. The US considers Melli to be a part of Iran’s financing for its nuclear program and it has long been illegal to do any business with Melli.
The US has not physically seized the assets yet, and the feds can expect a fight. The skyscraper will not cause nearly as much controversy as the seizure of the mosques, and the courts will want a clear reason to allow places of worship to be seized. As the AP notes, that action may well be seen by a court as an unconstitutional breach of the First Amendment. The protection of religion in the US is not absolute, of course; if a place of worship acts as a criminal enterprise, law enforcement agencies have the duty to arrest those responsible and put an end to any criminal activity. If Iran funds these mosques in violation of federal law, then the US has the jurisdiction to seize them. But they had better have an airtight case if they expect a judge to sign off on the seizure.
The timing is interesting. Obama has made quite a show of offering an “outstretched hand” to Iran in order to get them into talks to normalize relations and end their nuclear-weapons program. Obama won a Nobel Prize for his talk, but no concessions from Iran. In fact, they have made it clear this week that they have no intention of following through even on the weak concessions they made on storing enriched uranium. The sudden and surprising news of these seizures may be more of an outstretched finger than a hand as a response to their reversal on the IAEA agreement.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Ha! Great line!
Yishai on November 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Potentially. It would be a remarkably stupid religion but that isn’t a call for the state to make. People involve themselves in remarkably stupid religious experiences all the time and those religious beliefs get just as much protection as any other.
I don’t think we have to declare it a non-religion to defend ourselves.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Current events would suggest otherwise.
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Whoah.
Lotsa nastiness & stupidity here about whether Islam is a religion or not.
Yikes. Nutbags on both sides of the debate.
Calm nutbags. Outraged nutbags.
Folks-whether Islam is a definable religion or not misses the point here.
Islam is incompatible with our Constitution. bcs of this, they should always be suspect. If Christians were wholesale, world-wide blowing up unbelievers & cutting their heads off, then they should be suspect,too.
Siezing a mosque or not siezing a mosque-it deserves to be siezed if it’s linked to illegal practices. Period.
So if a Church of Christ somewhere is linked to terrorist activity, then it deserves to be siezed.
DUH.
Badger40 on November 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM
OK then. But for Islam not to be a religion then some usage and definition of the word has to be changed. If we start changing it how will it be changed to exclude Islam while still including Christians, Pagans, Buddhists, etc.
People have suggested “positive influence” – how does the state make that call and how does it determine what constitutes a positive influence? Does that mean the state also gets to decide what a negative influence is and crack down on it?
Some people have suggested Sharia as something to object to. How do we exclude private religious law while still allowing Rabbinical courts. Rabbinical courts that deny or permit divorces without regard to the rulings of civil courts for example.
SOme have said the Ummah concept needs to be limited. Does that mean we can start cracking down on the concept of Christendom?
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Why? No one serious is attacking the definition of religion; they are attacking the definition of Islam. They are challenging the definition of Islam as a religion, as we currently define ‘religion’ in our ‘englightened’ society.
Now: If you say that can’t be done without dragging the definition of religion into it, fine. But make that point. As it stands everyone else is talking about one thing and you are talking about another.
And yet, if it’s “just” a religion, there is still a natural limit to the degree of threat that it poses (some believe), and thus it can be safely ignored at some level (allegedly). Whereas with Islam, people are trying to point out that this is NOT the case, and things have to be re-evaluated in light of an expanded definition of Islam as, at the very least, more than a mere ‘religion’.
And, let me remind you: it’s not the Islamic umma that has ever used or advocated our overly restrictive definition of “religion” in the first place. It is *us*, in our infinite tomfoolery, who started down that road.
RD on November 13, 2009 at 2:46 PM
And for the record, I subscribe to our current definition of religion and would like to keep it. It is only those who are pushing the encroachment of Islam on Western world who IMHO seek to expand the definition of religion to include their twisted behaviors and attitudes.
If you are going to be defending the definition of religion from anyone, it should be from the Islamists, who are stretching the meaning of the word.
RD on November 13, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Also: If anyone says that Islam meets the textbook definition of ‘religion’ because it also includes everything covered in ‘religion’ and then some, I say that’s wrong-headed thinking.
That’s because, without all of the other parts of Islam (besides religion) thrown into the mix, you don’t actually have Islam.
Again, that’s not my definition, that’s the standing definition as it has stood for almost 1400 years. If only it could be different…
RD on November 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Seize’em and sell’em to ACORN for pimp housing projects.
hillbillyjim on November 13, 2009 at 2:55 PM
To say Islam is not a religion does bring up a conflict with how we define religion if Islam meets all the criteria of the current definition and we assert that it doesn’t really. We would need to either change the definition or find a way to reasonably carve Islam out. I think the current definition works, that Islam meets that definition, and that it imperils other religions if we start messing with those.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Sorry, realized this didn’t read correctly. The tomfoolery is our tendentious refusal to see Islam as it really is, and our compulsion to try to fit it into our conceptual box of a religion that can coexist peacefully within a civilization founded on rational precepts and laws created by man.
RD on November 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM
There was never doubt that Islam constituted a religion before now. In earlier centuries there was some doubt about whether or not it was a Christian heresy gone wild or a truly separate faith but nobody ever really questioned it’s status as a religion. I haven’t seen any really compelling arguments today to suggest that we should stop treating it as such. I’ve seen people say “it’s these other things that go with it” but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t meet the baseline definition. I’ve seen people say “but they do these barbaric things” but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be a religion (religious history being replete with disgusting and barbaric activity).
It meets that baseline definition. That’s a stumbling block. If we want to change that baseline let’s be honest and say we are changing it rather than just trying to assert that there is no change but it doesn’t count for Islam.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Thank you. That reads much more clearly.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 3:13 PM
No, this is where you are going wrong. Islam currently does not meet our definition of religion. That definition would have to be changed in order to incorporate Islam.
The fact that people don’t regularly point this out has only to do with the fact that they by & large ignore the bulk of Islam, and choose to recognize a patchwork quilt of Islamic beliefs, doctrines and customs as “Islam”, most without even realizing it.
So, when I agree with you that we shouldn’t start messing with our definition of religion, unfortunately that means Islam as a whole is “out”, not “in”.
Now, if the umma wants to start negotiations on precisely what % of Islam we will allow to exist in this country (and badge it “Islam”), we can talk. For starters, they’ll have to be restricted to that which we currently define as “religion” in our society. Don’t you agree?
RD on November 13, 2009 at 3:23 PM
So if you have a gangrenous limb you cannot amputate lest it impact on the integrity of the other limbs. Your suicide notes are piling up.
BL@KBIRD on November 13, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Okay, I’ll play.
And, with all of its consituent parts thrown in, not only is Islam blatantly unconstitutional, but Islam’s central tenets negate/abolish our very nation-state and its constitution, since ours don’t postulate the supremacy of Allah, are made in open defiance of Allah’s will, and must therefore be warred against in perpetuity.
With Islam established here, you either do not have a United States of America within which to even ponder the question of Islam’s compatibility with our definition of ‘religion’, or else at the very least you have the unending, mandatory warfare everyone is starting to tire of, that is specifically aimed at bringing this about.
Thus attempting to bring Islam onto these shores, whether in the guise of ‘religion’ or anything else, must necessarily be seditious and treasonous. There is no getting around it, unfortunately.
And everyone from CAIR to the Iranian ambassador to the U.N. in Turtle Bay knows it.
It’s only we who don’t, or pretend not to.
RD on November 13, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I think it does meet that definition. Worship of the deity, defined theology, position on the hereafter, divine judgement and commands, prophets, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life, prayer, ritual, meditation, & art. It’s all there. If things like that are what we use to state a baseline for religion why doesn’t Islam count if it meets all those baseline conditions?
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM
You keep defending your overly broad, and since it can included worshiping my morning dump, highly flawed definition of religion.
No one is buying it.
A better definition would exclude my bowel movement, and the even more disgusting islam, while including civilized creeds like Christianity of it’s various denominations, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, and all other faiths based on peace and coexistance.
A smart fellow like you should be up to that task.
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 4:04 PM
And yet I don’t come up with the commonly agreed definitions. I’m not the author of general consensus. (General – not universal) If you want a new one that excludes those things it’s up to you to come up with it, spread it, and convince other people that this should be the REAL definition rather than the “overly broad” and “highly flawed” one you object to now.
And be sure to consider all the loose threads when you do it. ‘Cause I’m sure all those monks, priests, imams, lamas, popes, saints, evangelists, etc. are just waiting to hear how they got it wrong.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM
These buildings will make excellent locations to have ACORN rallies and house Black Panthers for guarding the polling places.
Cybergeezer on November 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Any definition that includes anything up to and including my morning dump, is wrong, and I doubt you’ll find one person in a thousand who would agree with your “general consensus”.
It’s nonsense, and anyone with an iota of common sense will tell you so.
I also find it ironic, that someone would go to such lengths to defend islam as a religion, when it specifically claims to be the only religion, has as it’s express goal to destroying all other faiths, and gleefully uses violence to force conversion and approves of the murder of those who refuse.
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 4:22 PM
It’s just the consensus definition in a dictionary, in law, in most schools of theology, etc. All of these people would probably also say that any religion centered on your bowel movements is a ridiculous religion but that doesn’t mean that it is less of one.
Again – I’m not defending Islam I’m defending the idea that it meets the currently established definition of a religion. That’s the way conservatism works – we keep the values, concepts, and definitions as they are barring a very good reason to change them. Once we decide there is a good reason for the change we then clearly establish what the new form is.
Nobody is establishing WHAT this new idea of religion that doesn’t include Islam is – they just want to say “But not them!” and expect everything else to follow.
Conservation of ideas, institutions, and concepts.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Here’s a fun idea. Stop a thousand Americans on the street and ask them which of the following are religions: Islam, Roman Catholicism, Jedi
I’d predict almost universal acceptance of the first two and a good number for the last ;>
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Ask them if nazism is a religion.
According to your definition, it is. Will you find one in a million, one in ten million, who will say yes? Doubtful.
People say islam is a religion because they’ve been told it is, and there is appalling ignorance about what it actually believes. If they knew the truth, that it’s far more violent, barbaric, and dangerous than nazism ever was, there is no doubt the majority of Americans would say islam is not a religion, nor deserving of any protection or consideration of one.
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 5:07 PM
No. It isn’t. Where’s the theology? the cosmology? The eschatology? The prayer life? The divine commands? The relationship with the supernatural? There are religious overtones but it doesn’t actually meet the requirements.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 5:10 PM
The nazis took the old German paganism and grafted it onto their ideology, forming a “political religion” that meets all your criteria. It certainly was less absurd than other examples you claimed were religions, like my morning bowel movement or scientology.
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 5:25 PM
It’s been interest. Gotta motor. Sorry I didn’t see the reply… .
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Ok. Last comment. Scientology is a tex exempt religious organization. It meets both cultural and legal definitions of a religion. The nazis grafted religion on to a political ideology but it’s actually missing a cosmology, prayer life, and it certainly had atheistic tendencies. Spiritual and religious are not the same as far as nazis go. Really do have to catch a plane now. Have a great weekend!
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 5:27 PM
We also have a definition of “cult”, which is not a valid religion.
dogsoldier on November 13, 2009 at 5:46 PM
blockquote>The nazis grafted religion on to a political ideology but it’s actually missing a cosmology, prayer life, and it certainly had atheistic tendencies.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Sure it did, it just stole from the German pagan system, and added some of it’s own. You didn’t have a problem with islam stealing belief systems from other religions, or scientology’s self-admitted criminal intent, one wonders why you’ve turned squeamish over this particular example.
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Well, the concern muslims over at CAIR seem to be pretty pi$$ed about this. Among other statements, CAIR National Communications Dictator Ibrahim Hooper said, “the government’s move comes at a particularly bad time, as American Muslims are fearful of a backlash resulting from the recent shooting spree at Fort Hood in Texas”.
I’d suggest that everyone check into CAIR’s web site on a regular basis. Know Thy Enemy….
ronnyraygun on November 13, 2009 at 6:06 PM
There’s something else going on here. I doubt the seizures are taking place to protect America. Remember, people like Barack Obama, they give you the politically correct; the politically correct lesson, which is the opposite of what our conclusion should be about the threat of Islam, the Holocaust, Nazi dictators like Hitler and Ahmadinejad, Marxist dictators like Putin. Our conclusion should be that you destroy your enemies and you kill Nazi’s and you save your people and you don’t worry about world opinion and you don’t worry about anything else. And because left-wingers don’t think like this, there is something else going on here.
apacalyps on November 13, 2009 at 6:37 PM
I say we put all the Truthers in the skyscraper and test their deliberate demolition theory out. Rosie O’Donnell goes on the top floor.
Maquis on November 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Seize ALL muslim “holdings” and kick the worthless muslims out-o-the US! They apparently love sleeping on dunes with camels for “cameraderie”. ;-)
jgdp on November 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM
In your dreams, pal, and only in your dreams.
I doubt at this point we’ll ever try to purge the ranks of our own armed forces; it would take many more Fort Hoods before survival instincts finally overrode the PC buls–t paralyzing out nation.
Dark-Star on November 13, 2009 at 9:55 PM
One must out stretch their hand before delivering a b**** slap.
- The Cat
MirCat on November 13, 2009 at 10:57 PM
These are not mosque-mosques.
profitsbeard on November 14, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Some were blogging about this in April plus the BIDEN connection:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/04/biden-son-and-brother-near-epicenter-of.html
Annie on November 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Another link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2386465/posts
Annie on November 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM
A church somewhere is a lot different than daily attacks.
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.
Etc.
Akzed on November 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Interesting discussion. A lot of sophistry though. Islam is not and never has been a religion. It is the world’s oldest terrorist organization. It has been called a religion by terrorists and by fools to hide it’s real purpose.
proconstitution on November 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3