Noor Saga-Court Hearings

For the first time in the 50+ year history of the Muslim Community in Central Ohio, a dispute at the leadership level of an Islamic organization ended up in court. So far three full day hearings have taken place: February 10, March 31 and April 20, 2010, at an estimated cost of $15,000-$20,000 to both parties. What follows is a summary of what happened according to eyewitnesses. Please read Noor Saga-Introduction and Noor Saga-complaint and TRO to understand the nature of the conflict.

Testimony of Khaled Farag and Hassan Ayoub:

They presented a large number of documents labeled AIW meeting minutes and agendas. They showed that Hassan Ayoub and the other "board members" were regularly taking part in discussions, decision making, and meetings as a board that would only have been appropriate if they were AIW board members. They showed that Hassan Ayoub, in particular, signed a number of documents with the bank, acting presumably as an AIW board member. All of these meetings and agendas and actions were with Hany Saqr’s personal knowledge and he did not object to them. Ayoub also prepared and signed Sheikh Fares’s contract as AIW board member. The three disputed members took decisions and actions that were only allowed to be taken by AIW BOD members. Basically, their argument is if Ayoub and the other two, Mandourah and Islam, walked, talked, were introduced and acted like AIW board members, then they were board members. They claim that the three disputed board members were invited to be on the board but they admit that there was never a formal vote to appoint them as board members. They also claim that the AIW Bylaws did not require a vote, only an invitation. Therefore an official vote did not need to take place. They claim that the few documents that refer to an NICC board were actually referring to the AIW board because there was only one board running the organization, but the names were sometimes used interchangeably. This was no different than saying “Noor Center'' or “Masjid Alnoor”, both referring to the same and only one entity.

They brought witnesses like Zarqa Abed to testify that when she worked as Masjid Noor, she considered all six to be board members. She testified that she was told by Saqr that there were 6 AIW BOD members and to ensure all of them were always copied on every correspondence. She additionally testified that when she was leaving her employment at NICC, she requested an AIW BOD member be present to receive all of the confidential material she had. Saqr sent Hassan Ayoub for that purpose. During her testimony a copy of Zarqa's January 20 , 2010 E-mail to the community attacking all six board members was projected to show her neutrality and credibility.
Attorney David Dye was also called as a witness. In the first hearing the authenticity of the loan documents were questioned, particularly the AIW Corporate Resolution that authorized the taking of the loan, which listed six members of the AIW BOD, including disputed members Mandourah, Islam and Ayoub. David Dye told the court that this was indeed his actual AIW Corp. Resolution and that he would not have been able to even spell these names without cooperation from the BOD members. He went on to say that he reviewed this documentation with Saqr as part of his closing procedures and at no time did Saqr object to the names being listed as AIW BOD members. Dye said if there was ever an issue he would not have allowed the paperwork to be signed and would have made the changes and rescheduled the signing.

Abdul Aburmaieheh, a community member, testified to an incident in which Saqr presented the disputed board members as board members. However he did not know the distinction between NICC board and AIW board and he did not say that Saqr presented them as AIW board. He said that the community is devastated and split into two camps over the issue. However, he did say that the split in the community was because of the conflict (as opposed to being caused by Saqr personally).

Amgad Saleh testified from about 2:30 to 4:30 on the first day. He testified that he is a founding AIW board member, that Saqr is the Chairman of the organization, that he never approved the addition of any other board members to AIW, and that the bylaws states that all decisions by AIW, including any addition of any new board member, must be by unanimous decision. He specifically said that a few of the unsigned documents presented earlier that show his approval of certain actions were fraudulent and that he only saw them for the first time the day before. He testified that this whole problem started several months ago when Farag communicated with him regarding the status of the disputed members as AIW board. He claimed that Farag admitted that they were not AIW board. He said that if the restraining order was lifted on Saqr, it would not cause a problem in the community because Saqr is more than a board member. He has been a spiritual leader in the community for years. He also claimed to be an active member of the Muslim community in Columbus Ohio by his ongoing involvement with AIW and the mosque project.

Saqr and Saleh disputed the authenticity of many of the documents presented by the other side. Their position is that the three disputed board members were board members of NICC, a subcommittee, rather than members of AIW. They claim that the three disputed board members might have participated at meetings but that did not make them board members. Saqr and Saleh’s position is that because there was never a formal board meeting with a vote appointing the three disputed board members, they were therefore never appointed as board members of AIW. [ Note that no party produced evidence as to when these individuals were even appointed to the board of NICC as subcommittee of AIW]

On the final day of testimony Saqr called Jamal Sadoun, Mahmoud EL-Khateeb, Ahmad Moselam, Mohamed Soltan, and Inam Khokhar as witnesses. All witnesses testified that the organization needed Saqr’s leadership and vision and that without him the organization would be harmed. They also stated that he had very good character and that they have known him to be a good person who always had the best interest of the organization at heart.
Mohamed Soltan said that he wished this dispute had not gone to court and that the organization needed every board member. He stated that Saqr was the head, Farag was the heart and Ayoub was the backbone of the board.

Mahmoud El-Khateeb was the only witness to criticize any of the BOD members. He stated that Saqr was the best Islamic scholar in the USA, had a very sound understanding of Islam, and that his leadership was needed.
"I am an Imam who gives khutba’s around town and I have a moderate understanding of Islam. Some people on the board have a bad understanding of Islam, like Khaled Farag who has gotten his understanding of Islam from some back home country. Imam Hany is a respected imam in the community who helped found all of the organization in town from the beginning. He was the first Imam of this community. He has the best vision, and is an irreplaceable leader of Masjid Noor and I have never seen him do anything that is not in the best interest of the organization."
He was asked about Farag and he stated that Farag was a manipulator and dishonest. He also said that the disputed board members had a local law enforcement officer ( Abdul Aburmaieheh who is a Muslim community member) threaten him (This is in reference to an E-mail from Abdul Aburmaieheh) . He complained that this was an abuse of the officer's position and explained his opinion that immigrant Muslims are often uncomfortable with police because of prior experiences in their countries of origin.

He also said that he had heard that it was said by Farag to others that we have Terrorist Cells in the mosque. [Heresay, unconfirmed]. He also said that he encouraged people to call the Ohio Attorney General’s office because we live in a country of laws and this was the only alternative to get answers for the community. He also said that he was prevented from speaking in public and from the Mosque and police were called to prevent him from the Mosque, although when asked what court issued that order he could not answer.

Also everyone testified that Saqr participated in a community meeting and the election for board members called by El-Khateeb on Friday January 22, 2010.[This important meeting will be covered in a future posting Insaallah] and actively voted for people. They said during that meeting Saqr responded loudly from the crowd at that meeting when Farag announced that it was not legal and there was no provision for public elections for BOD members in the bylaws. Saqr's response to people was that this was legal according to the bylaws.

In the end the attorney for Farag et al responded that no one is accusing Saqr of being a bad guy or having bad intentions. He gave the analogy of a car that cannot have two steering wheels. Even if it has the best drivers with the best intentions it will be a disaster. Therefore Saqr must continue to be restrained from representing himself as an alternative board for the organization. He also cited case law dealing with “Defacto Officers” to show that even despite having no documentation, these BOD members have to be considered valid and that the law prevents anyone from challenging this since it was confirmed and ratified by every subsequent accepted BOD meeting, decisions and actions, without opposition.

Saqr's attorney filed a motion asking for the bond to be increased because of the high possibility that the other side would lose and to cover Saqr’s attorney fees. The magistrate denied this motion.

Saqr’s attorney filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss the case because the other side admitted that there was never a formal board meeting in which the three disputed board members were appointed. This fact alone should have been enough to find them not board members by law according to the attorney. The judge rejected this argument and denied the motion.

Farag’s attorney filed a contempt motion against Saqr because of his refusal to turn over some material and email lists as required by a court order. This motion has yet to be heard because both sides ran out of time on the third day of testimony.
The magistrate is done listening to the evidence and is expected to make his decision within a week or two on the following simple question:

Should the restraining order on Saqr remain as the overall case moves forward in the court system.