March
7, 2006
Media Ignores Homegrown Islamic Terror Trial
By Joel
Mowbray
Unbeknownst to most Americans, federal prosecutors opened their
case recently in the terrorism trial of a young American who studied
under two Taliban-tied imams in California and whose
grandfather was Pakistan’s minister of religion in the 1980’s.
The trial
of Hamid Hayat, 23, is not taking place in the dark of night nor
in a military tribunal from which the media is barred. It is in
an open California courtroom, the very kind that has been overrun
for trials of the likes of Scott Peterson and O.J. Simpson. Yet
in the month of February, the New York Times had exactly
one story on the alleged terror cell in Lodi, California. The
Washington Post had none. And on the cable news channels,
the trial has received scant attention.
Not that
the trial suffers from lack of excitement. Hayat confessed that
he had attended terror training in Pakistan, the video of which
jurors saw last week. An FBI informant who had befriended the
defendant—while wearing a wire—testified that Hayat
would offer praise for “martyrs” and the Taliban,
while professing disgust for America.
Adding further
intrigue to the case is the high-profile status of the defendant’s
grandfather, Qari Saeed ur Rehman. The former minister of religion
in Pakistan, Rehman is the founder and still the head of the Jamia
Islamia madrassa, an Islamic school believed to be deeply radical.
Hayat’s
mosque in Lodi, California was headed by two imams who appear
to have long, deep ties to the Taliban. The two had intended to
establish an Islamic school in Lodi modeled after one they had
run in Pakistan, which counts among its graduates and teachers
many high-ranking members of the Taliban. Both men were deported
last year.
The most
tantalizing tidbit, though, is one not yet addressed at the trial.
Hamid Hayat and his father, Umer, were stopped at Dulles International
Airport as they were preparing to fly to Pakistan in April 2003.
Agents discovered that between them, the father, an ice cream
vendor, and son, a farm hand, had $28,093 in cash. (Any amount
in excess of $10,000 must be declared.) Most of the money was
confiscated, though neither was arrested. Yet the mystery remains:
how did two menial laborers stumble into that much cash?
Almost none
of these details, however, have made their way into the national
media. Local papers have dutifully covered the terrorism trial,
but major outlets in Washington and New York have mostly ignored
it.
While miniscule
coverage could be explained away by the fact that only Hayat is
standing trial for attending terrorism training camps (his father’s
trial on lying about his son’s travels starts this week),
the Sacramento Bee last summer reported that authorities
now believe that seven men from the Lodi mosque also traveled
to Pakistan for training.
Such a scenario
would not be shocking given what is known about the two now-deported
imams, Mohammad Adil Khan and Shabbir Ahmed, both of whom were
imported from Pakistan. Evidence presented at Ahmed’s deportation
hearings (Adil Khan did not challenge his deportation) indicated
that several high-ranking Taliban members were students and later
teachers at the Karachi-based Jamia Farooqia.
The madrassa
also apparently also had a fan in bin Laden himself. Citing classified
documents, the Sacramento Bee reported, “Bin Laden,
in a 1998 news conference, counted the scholars of the Farooqia
school among his supporters.”
Ahmed, for
his part, admitted to delivering fiery anti-American sermons in
Pakistan in the wake of 9/11, in which he encouraged his followers
to take up arms against the United States. That November, the
Boston Globe quoted Ahmed calling for armed revolution
against Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf: “Whoever
is against Islam, we will destroy him. If this is rebellion, we
are not afraid of rebellion. Blood is going to be spilled in Pakistan.”
Just months
later, Shabbir Ahmed was granted a visa to come the United States.
Ahmed was
recruited to Lodi by his mentor, Adil Khan, because the latter
wanted to be replaced as imam in order to focus his energies on
building an Islamic school modeled after Jamia Farooqia. He came
disturbingly close to realizing his goal. Before the small town
of 60,000 was rocked by the arrests of the imams and three others
last June, Lodi officials had approved development of the new
school. (The approval has since been rescinded, though technically
only because of zoning concerns.)
At least
local media outlets in Northern California are covering the Hayat
trial. Imam Ali al-Timimi was convicted last year of instructing
his followers to wage jihad against the United States. Nine of
his followers have been convicted. All this happened in Northern
Virginia, yet the Washington Post ran just a handful
of stories before al-Timimi’s conviction.
Once the
guilty verdict was handed down, though, the Post made
it a prominent story—by editorializing on his behalf, arguing
that the life sentence was “too harsh.” The paper’s
reasoning? His followers didn’t wage successful
jihad, thus it wasn’t as serious.
Is this the
new media barometer, that terrorism is only worth reporting if
it’s successful?
