Maine: Muslim who struck two NYPD officers with a machete
intended to carry out jihad against ‘anti-Muslim’ officials
Maine man accused of Jihad attack on NYPD officers to stand trial
Man accused of King Soopers mass shooting scheduled for
late September hearing on competency
This is odd, because he was reported as having been declared competent to stand trial just weeks ago. Either the report was wrong or his case is tied up in bureaucratic wrangling, or both.
All this focus on whether or not Ahmad Al Issa, who murdered ten people in a Colorado supermarket in 2021, is competent to stand trial has overshadowed other considerations regarding his motive. There has been a great deal of argument over whether or not he was an Islamic jihadi, and one unappreciated bit of evidence in this regard is that when he was apprehended, Al Issa was wearing only shorts. Yet he hadn’t entered the supermarket in this state of undress. Why had he taken off his clothes after shooting people?
A clue may come from 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, who packed a fancy suit in his luggage on that fateful day, in anticipation, according to a letter that was also in his luggage, of “marriage” to the “women of paradise,” whom he would encounter “dressed in their most beautiful clothing.” Islam envisions a physical paradise of eternal sex with heavenly virgins. While Atta envisioned some initial formalities necessitating the suit, Al Issa may have had a more direct approach in mind: he was likely anticipating being killed by police and showing up in paradise undressed and ready for action. Once it was clear, however, that he wasn’t going to be killed, he may have begun to feign mental illness in order to avoid prison and be confined to a much more lax mental hospital. After all, “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.’” (Bukhari 4.52.269)
This is not idle speculation, as it was clear from his social media accounts, which were scrubbed shortly after his attack, that Al Issa was a deeply religious Muslim who was intensely worried about “Islamophobia.” None of this, however, has been discussed at all in any open forum in connection with his case, likely because far-Left Colorado officials are as concerned about “Islamophobia” as was Al Issa himself, as well as because of the questions about his mental state. Yet it has been common practice for years to classify as manifestations of “mental illness” what are clearly Islamic jihad attacks, and Old Joe Biden’s handlers had every reason not to want a major jihad massacre in the U.S. so soon after their doddering corruptocrat began pretending to be president.
It has become obvious to me that all deeply religious Muslims are mentally ill. As such, they should be segregated from healthy societies before they commit insane massacres.
There’s another curiosity about this case: the establishment media routinely and unanimously gives the shooter’s name as “Alissa,” despite the fact that he himself wrote it as “Al Issa” on his Facebook and Twitter accounts. Is the media trying to obscure Al Issa’s Arabic and Islamic identity? “Journalists” wouldn’t do that, now, would they?
Court Allows Religious Discrimination Claim to Go Forward
in Ex-Hamline Prof’s Mohammed Images / Islamic Art Controversy
by Eugene Volokh, Reason, September 16, 2023
As readers of the blog may know, Hamline University declined to renew Erica López Prater’s instructor contract because she displayed Islamic Art containing images of Mohammed in her World Art class, and some students objected. López Prater sued, and on Friday Judge Katherine M. Menendez (D. Minn.) allowed her religious discrimination claim to go forward (López Prater v. Trustees of the Hamline Univ. of Minn.):
Ms. López Prater alleges two theories of religious discrimination: 1) discrimination because she is not Muslim, and 2) discrimination because she failed to conform to certain religious beliefs of others (i.e., that it is improper to view images of the Prophet Muhammad)…. Although the Court appreciates that Ms. López Prater alleges unusual and somewhat indirect theories for religious discrimination, it does not believe that novelty in this context equates to failure to state a claim. Given the lens applicable at this stage, where a plaintiffs’ allegations are taken as true, dismissal is not appropriate.
Ms. López Prater may have difficulty proving her case at later stages, especially because demonstrating that Hamline would have treated her differently if she was Muslim seems very hard to establish. But the sole question before the Court at this stage is whether her allegations plausibly state a claim for relief, and Hamline bears the burden of dismissal….
Ms. López Prater maintains that Hamline would not have labeled the act of showing the images “Islamophobic” if she were Muslim. She also points to the temporal proximity between the uproar over her showing the images and Hamline’s decision not to renew her contract as suggesting a discriminatory motive. Exactly two weeks after Ms. López Prater met with Dean Kostihova and was told that there was a large outcry within the Muslim Student Association and Muslim staff were threatening to resign, she was notified by the department head that the spring semester class she had been scheduled to teach was being cancelled and that her contract would not be renewed. Ms. López Prater responded to that email, suggesting that the change must be related to her showing images of the Prophet Muhammad in class. The department head did not deny this suggestion. The continued description of her conduct as “Islamophobic” by members of Hamline’s administration suggests that it was a problem that Ms. López Prater did not conform to the belief that one should not view images of the Prophet Muhammad for any reason.
The information in Ms. López Prater’s complaint is sufficient to plausibly allege that Hamline took the adverse actions because she was not Muslim or did not conform to the religious beliefs held by some that viewing images of the Prophet Muhammad is forbidden. And while Hamline contends that Ms. López Prater’s non-conformance theory must fail—because she did not allege that Hamline itself held those beliefs—caselaw recognizes that an employer can discriminate against an employee if it acts on the preference of third parties such as customers or clients. Therefore, Ms. López Prater alleging that Hamline discriminated against her by acting on the preferences of certain Muslim students and staff members is sufficient at this stage….======================================================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment