The New York Times again reveals its indifference to anti—Semitism and the threat of radical Islam in America — as well as a healthy dose of hypocrisy. Last April, a prison Imam named Umar Abdul—Jalil (who has a $76,000 a year job counseling prisoners in the New York prison system) gave a speech which was surreptiously recorded.

In the speech, he said that "the greatest terrorists in the world" occupy the White House, that Muslim inmates are "literally tortured" at the federal jail in Manhattan, and that "Zionists of the media" dictate "what Islam is to us". The anti—Semitic trope of "Zionists in the media" manipulating the news is one of the hoariest and most damaging of all the anti—Semitic myths and is, sadly, quite prevalent in the Muslim world.

Mayor Bloomberg suspended the Imam for a mere two weeks. This slap on the wrist is a decision that the New York Times praises in itsopinion pages today . Even aside from the anti—Semitism, is it just or wise for the taxpayers of new York City to give  their hard—earned money to a man who is clearly prejudiced and deluded, and who promotes anti—Semitism and other hateful canards?

The threat of radicalization of prisoners by Muslim preachers has been well—documented. The Wall Street Journal ran a front—page story , "How a Cleric Spread Extremism in Jails" on February 5th, 2003 that specifically noted the problem and threats of this practice in New York State prisons.  Do the editors at the Times deign to read their larger crosstown peer or do they just choose to appease Islamist extremism?  

Both Jose Padilla (the alleged Dirty Bomber" and Richard Reid (the shoe bomber wanna—be) were exposed to radical islam in prison.The Times, which zealously defends the separation of church and state, seems also to have no problem with taxpayer funds going to a Muslim Imam.

As the New York Sun has noted, such use of taxpayer funds ought to amount to a violation of the federal First Amendment and the New York State Constitution. Most religious counselors in prison are volunteers or are supported by private funds.

It is obscene for government money to go towards a preacher who practices and preaches anti—Semitism. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Times to not only defend but offer high praise for the Mayor's decision to retain this  Imam. Would the Times defend a white supremacist who dons the garb of a religious counselor?

No, of course not... but an anti—Semitic Muslim Imam raises no problem. It is called multi—culturalism run amok.

Ed Lasky is the news editor of The American Thinker.