This little tidbit, commented upon by Stop the ACLU and Jawa Report, is utterly stunning

Emadeddin Z. Muntasser and Muhammed Mubayyid face charges in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts for the soliciting and expenditure "of funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad, including the distribution of pro-jihad publications." Their Care International "charity," a now-defunct Boston-based al Qaeda front organization, published, among other things, the English version by al Qaeda co-founder Abdullah Azzam of "Join the Caravan," which states: "[t]he obligation of Jihad today remains [individually required] until the last piece of land, which was in the hand of the Muslims, but has been occupied by disbelievers, is liberated."

In their Oct. 5 request for a dismissal, the defendants effectively -- and unwittingly -- explain all the reasons why the federal government should outlaw Islamic charitable giving in the United States.

In their motion, attorneys Mrs. Estrich, Malick Ghachem, Norman Zalkind and Elizabeth Lunt, argue that the defendants merely exercised their religious freedom and obligation to give "zakat" (Islamic charity).

Their motion cites Chapter 9, verse 60 of the Koran, which describes "those entitled to receive zakat." According to the definition of zakat in The Encyclopedia of Islam, "category 7" of eligible recipients are "volunteers engaged in jihad" for whom the zakat cover "living expenses and the expenses of their military service (animals, weapons)."

In other words, faithfully practicing Islam mandates the funding of terrorist activities -- and funds given in support of jihadi terrorism should be tax-deductable!

We Americans keep being told that jihadi terrorism is not a true face of Islam, that Islam is a religion of peace and that terrorist activites are contrary to its teachings. We are frequently told that jihad is an internal struggle and not the spreading of Islamic hegemony by the sword. yet the argument presented in federal court by distinguished lawyers -- law professors, the campaign manager for a former Democrat nominee for president, and the former head of a state ACLU chapter -- are arguing precisely the opposite as they seek the dismissal of the charges against individuals who have aided and abetted terrorism.

I'm not sure which is more shocking -- that these "respectable" folks are explicitly siding with jihadi terrorism against the United States, or that they are arguing that the United States Constitution protects jihadi terrorism against interference by the United Staes government.

Oh, and this is one more reason to vote Republican -- the ACLU is an actively partisan group that favors teh Democrats, and Estrich is a likely judicial nominee in any future Democrat presidential administration.

MORE AT: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Ace of Spades, Texas Hold 'Em, Dread Pundit Bluto.