The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that allowing this would pose a security risk. But who cares about that when Muslims must be accommodated?
INDIANAPOLIS Lawyers for American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh asked a federal judge Wednesday to find the Federal Bureau of Prisons in contempt for not allowing Muslim inmates in a high-security Indiana prison unit to pray together five times a day, as required by their faith.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the eight-page contempt motion in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis and sent a copy to The Associated Press.
The prisons agency has said inmates of all religions housed in the Terre Haute federal prison’s Communications Management Unit have been allowed to pray together three times daily after a federal judge ruled in Lindh’s favor in a lawsuit seeking the prayer time.
The ACLU of Indiana argues that isn’t what Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson’s Jan. 11 ruling required. Magnus-Stinson said Lindh, 32, sincerely believes Islam mandates Muslims pray together five times a day and federal law requires the prison to accommodate his beliefs. The motion also said prayer times set by the prison during some times of year make only two daily prayers possible or make prayers impossible to perform during the proper times.
A message seeking comment on the motion was left Wednesday for the Bureau of Prisons.
Those housed in Lindh’s unit are considered extreme security risks and their interactions are closely monitored. Until last month, inmates housed in the unit were only allowed to pray together once per week or during Ramadan or on other significant religious holidays. At other times, inmates had to pray alone in their cells and hope to hear each other through the walls.
Magnus-Stinson found the policy violated a 1993 law banning the government from curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest, and the government chose not to appeal her ruling.
Prison officials said during the trial on Lindh’s lawsuit that allowing group prayers every day would pose a security risk and that inmates had used religion as cover for gang-like activity, but the judge dismissed those arguments as insubstantial….