How the FBI deals with Muslims who keep crying ‘wolf’

FBI manualBNI readers are all too familiar with Muslims’ (notably CAIR’S) relentless demands for an FBI investigation of what they always want to call an ‘Islamophobic hate crime,’ i.e., Muslim woman is forced to remove her headbag for security reasons, or someone puts a little graffiti on a mosque, or breaks a window, or drops a few slices of ham at a mosque, etc. So it’s no wonder on the rare occasion when a real hate crime might have been committed, the FBI doesn’t just drop everything to be at the beck and call of the Muslim wet diaper whiners.

One reason could be that the alleged ‘Islamophobic’ perps are rarely ever found, often because Muslims themselves intentionally cause minor cosmetic damage to the outside of a mosque, in order to get sympathy from the public and law enforcement. Check out the screens below to see the attitudes of Muslims toward the FBI.

NY TIMES Take the case of Muhammad Chaudhry, who showed up at the Islamic Center of East Bay in Antioch, Calif., to find seven bullet holes in one of the building’s front windows.


Agents from the San Francisco office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived and documented it and previous incidents at the center. In 2005, someone had left messages including “racial slurs” on the center’s answering machine, the agents wrote. In 2006, a single shot had damaged a window; a few months later, the same window was destroyed with a brick.

In a report written three weeks after the shots were fired, and obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, an agent wrote that no investigation would continue “since there is no current evidence to show this incident as being a hate crime.”


Six months later, arson gutted the center. F.B.I. agents opened an investigation, but members of the center wondered whether the fire could have been prevented if the agency had pursued the fusillade that preceded it. The F.B.I. did not respond to specific questions about the things that happened at the center and another case from the same year.

Reservations over how the situation at the center in Antioch was handled underscore a sometimes delicate relationship between the F.B.I. and the Muslim population near San Francisco.

About a year ago, a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and other groups yielded about 15,000 documents detailing interactions between FBI agents and Muslims in that part of the state. (CAIR sent out this flyer to all Muslims, warning them not to cooperate with the FBI)


Lawyers and activists said that the documents showed that the F.B.I. had used a mosque outreach program, meant to combat hate crimes directed at Muslims, to gather information about people engaged in lawful activities. News reports followed, along with debates over how the F.B.I. should approach the Muslim population. At the time, F.B.I. officials said those operations were appropriate.

But most of the thousands of pages the F.B.I. turned over received little or no attention. Among them were reports that documented a handful of instances in which agents declined to pursue possible hate crimes.

Although the F.B.I. requires that agents examine all such claims, not all result in a full investigation. Some lack dependable evidence, and agents may determine that others do not include hate-crime components as defined by federal law. Ms. Sohn said that it could be hard to find proof of intent, a key element in demonstrating that a hate crime took place.


But Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent and now a senior policy counsel for the A.C.L.U. in Washington, said that two instances in which the San Francisco office did not pursue investigations stood out.

One involved a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, who told agents in 2007 that he had received threatening calls from blocked numbers after including his phone number on fliers promoting an antiwar protest. One caller allegedly told the student to be “very, very careful,” an F.B.I. report stated and added, “You wouldn’t want an accident to happen to you.” The second allegedly used a racial epithet, the agents wrote, and told the caller to blow himself up “before we do it for you.” (DING DING DING! Taqiyya alert)


The report went on to note that F.B.I. records indicated that a person whose name was redacted, apparently the student, had previously written e-mails that “conveyed hatred toward the United States and Israel and support for the Palestinian cause.”

A man named Snehal Shingavi said he was the one who had received the threats and spoken with the F.B.I. He said that the agency had not accurately characterized the views he had expressed in e-mails and added that it was improper to catalog political opinions attributed to him. “The linking of my political activity with the decision not to fully investigate the death threats is very troubling,” Mr. Shingavi said.


Also troubling, Mr. German said, was the decision not to start a hate-crime investigation after shots were fired at the Islamic Center of East Bay, given the escalating nature of the attacks there.

“Here was an opportunity to do something to protect the community,” Mr. German said. “There is concern in the community that the F.B.I. is viewing them through only one lens, as potential suspects.”


Mr. Rahman, from the center in Antioch, said that agents began contacting him regularly after the arson there, but became uncomfortable when questions about the fire seemed to give way to questions about the center’s members.

“After you’ve been victimized (ah, yes, pulling out the Muslim ‘victim’ card) , that is not something you want to hear,” Mr. Rahman said, adding that he cautioned the agents that their work in general would not benefit from such an approach, telling them: “You’re not going to build a relationship this way.”