Skip to content
UK Apologetics Library
Menu
  • Home – UK Apologetics Library
  • About
  • News
  • Podcast
    • Miguel Hayworth – Podcasts
    • John Young – Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Categories
    • Bible Studies
    • Audio/Video
    • Other Issues
    • False Doctrines
    • False Teachers
    • Religous Cults
    • The Occult
    • Whats New
    • Legal Disclaimer
  • F.A.Q’s
Menu

Court Cases and Scandals Surrounding the Group: A Detailed Examination of Legal Proceedings and Allegations

Posted on May 26, 2025May 26, 2025


Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus – Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

Back

Introduction

This article examines a high-profile legal case involving defendants associated with a media campaign and film production that targeted the Islamic Research Ministry (IRM), a religious organization. The defendants faced multiple allegations including racketeering, extortion, defamation, and unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. The case reveals complex legal battles involving claims of fraud, harassment, and conspiracy, as well as the use of media to influence public perception.

Background of the Case

In 2005, defendants Hashem and McGowen initiated a media campaign against the IRM through a film titled Little Claudy, which contained allegations of criminality, sexual misconduct, and financial fraud against the IRM and its members. The film project was commercialized through Dragonslayer Productions, a company established by the defendants to market the film rights. Notably, Hashem traveled to California to secure funding for this for-profit project (Case 2:08-cv-00687-GEB-DAD Document 56).

Alongside the film’s promotion, the defendants created websites and an entity called “Hashem(s) Films,” which published defamatory content and incited religious hatred, including unauthorized use of IRM’s copyrighted film footage and personal likenesses of IRM members. False claims circulated through these media outlets alleged that IRM attempted to bribe the defendants to suppress the film’s release (Id.).

Key Legal Allegations and Activities

Media Campaign and Defamation

The defendants actively distributed the Little Claudy film and related materials, including outtakes and attack videos, labeling IRM as a criminal and demonic organization. After partial legal intervention blocked further distribution of the film, the defendants repurposed the footage in a serial titled The Djall or Anti-Christ, further vilifying IRM and its members (Id.).

Scheme Involving Ramon Watkins (Prophet Yahweh)

A separate scheme involved a Nevada-based radio and TV minister, Ramon Watkins (aka Prophet Yahweh). Defendants funded Watkins under false pretenses to produce a film that would ridicule him while simultaneously manufacturing a fabricated feud between Watkins and IRM to attract investors. The defendants even suggested Watkins self-inflict gunshot wounds to fake an assassination attempt attributed to IRM, which Watkins declined (Id.).

Other Illegal Schemes

Additional illegal activities included filing false federal civil rights complaints alleging employment discrimination and sexual harassment, involving defendants Hashem, McGowen, and others (Id.).

Retaliation Against Whistleblowers

In 2008, two whistleblowers provided IRM with information about defendants’ activities. In response, the defendants allegedly threatened an investigative internet-radio journalist, portraying him as an enemy of the Muslim faith and endangering his safety (Id.).

Legal Charges and Causes of Action

The plaintiff, IRM, brought multiple claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state laws. The key causes of action included:

  • Count I (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)): Defendants received income through racketeering activities involving unauthorized use of IRM film footage, extortion, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering.
  • Count II (18 U.S.C. § 1962(b)): Defendants used racketeering income to establish and maintain a criminal enterprise—Muslims United TV—using IRM’s footage to raise funds.
  • Count III (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)): Defendants conducted and participated in racketeering through companies such as Dragonslayer Productions, Muslims United TV, and Hashem(s) Films.
  • Count IV (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)): Defendants conspired to commit the above violations, coordinating predicate acts including extortion, fraud, and threats.
  • Count V (State Law – Replevin): Wrongful conversion and control over IRM’s film footage, seeking its return.
  • Count VI (California Civil Code § 3344): Unauthorized use of IRM officials’ names, likenesses, and voices for illegal promotion, with claims for statutory damages (Id.).

Pattern of Criminal Conduct

The court documents reveal a coordinated scheme involving extortion, blackmail, money laundering, mail and wire fraud, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering (18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 1513, 873, 875, 1341, 1343, 1957, 1952). Notable acts include:

  • Obtaining IRM footage under false pretenses to extort money.
  • Threatening IRM members with fabricated allegations.
  • Inducing Watkins to make threats of violence against IRM.
  • Soliciting self-inflicted injury by Watkins to falsely implicate IRM.
  • Threatening whistleblowers who exposed defendants’ schemes.
  • Using payment platforms such as PayPal and eBay accounts to fund operations.
  • Laundering money through these accounts to further racketeering acts.
  • Traveling across states and internationally to advance these illegal activities (Id.).

Legal Outcome and Relief Sought

IRM sought compensatory and treble damages exceeding $75,000 for each count, along with costs, attorney fees, and injunctive relief to prevent further use and distribution of its footage and defamation materials. The case highlights the serious implications of using media and technology for harassment and criminal schemes against religious organizations.

Conclusion

This case exemplifies the intersection of media, religion, and the law, demonstrating how defamatory campaigns and racketeering can cause significant harm to targeted groups. It underscores the necessity for vigilance in protecting intellectual property, reputations, and safety, particularly in the digital age where content can be rapidly disseminated and manipulated.


References

Click to access gov.uscourts.caed.174455.56.0.pdf

  • Case 2:08-cv-00687-GEB-DAD Document 56, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Filed August 25, 2011.

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Subscribe to our Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to the U.K.A.L blog and receive notifications of new posts by email or Our RSS Feed by the RSS icon on the top right hand corner of the website.

Join 44 other subscribers
©2025 UK Apologetics Library | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
%d