Hiding in plain sight: New Hampshire mosque preaches terrorism

Muslims pray at Id Kah Mosque on Eid ul-Fitr, 2010 (photo: Preston Rhea, https://www.flickr.com/photos/prestonrhea/5016463525)

Bomb Throwers, by James Simpson, Sept. 6, 2017:

A concerned New Englander recently arranged for the assessment of the Islamic Society of New Hampshire’s (ISoNH) mosque in Manchester in that state. He had noticed a disproportionate number of military-age males visiting the mosque and heard from many local women who said they were frightened by the attitudes some of these men expressed toward them. The results of the man’s research were more frightening.

P. David Gaubatz, co-author of Muslim Mafia, was hired to assess this mosque. He is a former Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) federal agent who specialized in Islamic counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism. According to his book, he worked and lived in the Middle East for decades and was the first civilian federal agent in Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom (March 2003). That year he led a 15-man team to extract family members of the Iraqi lawyer who helped save Army Private First Class Jessica Lynch. He has investigated over 280 mosques in the U.S. alone and uses a rating system developed by a former Islamist, .

U.S. Islamists and their allies in the American Left have long sought to discredit this rating system as contrived nonsense created by Islamophobes, but that very effort calls into question their motives, expertise, and integrity. Tafik Hamid is a former member of Jamaa Islamiya (also known as al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya or, in English, Islamic Group),  — an Egyptian organization branded a terrorist group by the U.S. government, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was a member of this group, as was Omar Abdel-Rahman, the so-called “blind sheikh” convicted as the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Hamid has long since abandoned his radicalism and has become a widely-recognized Islamic reformer.

The rating system is based on numerous factors readily observant by how strictly the mosque conforms to Islamic standards and how aggressively it promotes Shariah (Islamic law). For example, are men and women allowed to worship in the same room? What kind of dress is mandatory, e.g. must women wear a niqab or hijab? Can they get away with a modern form of hijab? How does the imam dress? Details like rings worn and style of pants indicate the imam’s devotion to Wahhabism or other Islamic sects and to Shariah itself.

The imam’s dedication to Shariah is especially important because Shariah is a doctrine of political dominance and conquest, and Muslims who promote it are likely to promote jihad as a means to impose it.

The system also rates the mosque based on messages taught in sermons. For example, does the mosque promote the killing of gays, killing for apostasy, stoning women for infidelity, and Shariah-sanctioned slavery?

Gaubatz found that ISoNH was strictly observant and promoted all these ideas and more. Using a 1 to 10 rating scale, with 10 being the worst, Gaubatz assigned a grade of 10 for Shariah compliance and 9 for jihadist potential. He concluded:

The ISoNH is a Sunni/Saudi and Pakistani front for Islamic based terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. This mosque had very violent materials inside for worshippers that advocate the overthrow of America and physical Jihad against U.S. and Israeli targets. This is based on the mosque having the same Islamic manuals in their possession that Islamic terrorist groups utilize for their training. The ISoNH had material written and edited by a convicted Islamic terrorist supporter (Ali Al Timimi). The Imam and mosque worshippers were extremely Shariah compliant. ISIS and Al Qaeda would find this mosque acceptable for their training and education of Mujahideen fighters (Islamic terrorists).

Some of the literature referred to is shown in the below graphic:

A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam was edited by twelve Islamic “scholars.” I have circled two names. Ali Al-Timimi — whom Gaubatz referenced — is now serving a life sentence for terrorism. Sheik Jamal Zarabozo is considered “too extreme” even for some Islamists as he advocates stoning to death for “heretics.”

Another brochure promoted at the mosque is Jihad in Islam. This 33-page document makes clear that the goals of Islam are to subjugate the world. Under the heading What Jihad Really Is? (sic) it states:

In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. ‘Muslim’ is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And ‘Jihād’ refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to achieve this objective…

…Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet—not because the sovereignty over the earth should be wrested from one nation or several nations and vested in one particular nation, but because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme or what would be truer to say from ‘Islam’ which is the programme of well-being for all humanity. Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. (p. 5)

Many U.S. mosques are little more than meeting places and training centers for Islamic terrorists. For example, the Tsarnaev brothers and many other terrorists regularly attended the Islamic Society of Boston. Why is it still open?

Officials at all levels of government, including within many police forces, have been gripped by a fever of political correctness that virtually guarantees we will remain blind to the danger such mosques pose until it is too late.

Former Manchester Ward 2 Republican State Rep. Greg Salts read aloud from Gaubatz’s report on the Manchester mosque at a recent public meeting of the local Board of Mayor and Aldermen. The response from elected officials was predictable. Instead of seriously considering Gaubetz’s warning, they acted offended, using the familiar slur popularized by the Southern Poverty Law Center, “hate speech.”

Following are some of their comments as published in Manchester’s Union Leader:

Alderman Chairman Patrick Long: “Personally this hate talk has no place in this city, that’s just my opinion.”

Alderman-at-Large Dan O’Neil: “There is no need in the city of Manchester for hatred. I know this board won’t stand for it; our citizens won’t stand for it.”

Manchester Chief of Police Nick Willard: “What [Gaubatz] wrote in this piece of paper is slanderous. I do not believe the mosque is a hotbed for terrorism. I don’t trust this gentleman’s research. I think he is trying to sell a book. I think the guy is a crackpot and I don’t believe we have those issues in this city.

As quoted in the newspaper, Gaubatz responded:

I get that same reaction a lot of the time. They don’t want to admit they have a problem in their area and it took an outsider to find it and identify it.

Gaubatz added to those remarks during a telephone interview for this article:

In response to Chief Willard’s ill-considered remarks I say this: ‘Chief Willard is a poor excuse for a senior law enforcement officer.  He has no clue what to look for in a mosque. The tax payers of his community deserve a Chief who supports them and not mosque leaders who support the teachings of ISIS. Finally, I do not receive any royalties for my book, so it is both ignorant and insulting to dismiss my report as an effort to sell books. It was provided for the benefit and as a warning to the Manchester community. What does the Chief care more about, Manchester or the mosque?’

At every level, we see daily demonstrations of how corrupt and incompetent our “leaders” have become. This is a situation that cannot stand. We still have the vote. I hope it can save us from these useful idiots for Islamism before the terrorism being contemplated in many corners throughout the U.S. strikes yet again.

I am not holding my breath.

James Simpson is an investigative journalist, businessman and author. His latest book is The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.

Justice Department Forces Christian Pastor to Testify on Islam Views

UPDATE: Federal Court Dismisses Entire Justice Department Mosque Case

PJ Media, by J. Christian Adams, Aug. 31, 2017:

The United State Department of Justice has issued subpoenas to force a Christian pastor in Virginia to disclose under oath his views on Islam.

Pastor Steve Harrelson of the Mt. Lebanon Baptist Church in Boston, Virginia, has been served with a wide-ranging subpoena by lawyers for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. The subpoena demands his presence to testify under oath in response to questions from Justice Department lawyers about his views on Islam as well as several other issues:

DOJ Subpoena listing documents targets must provide to the government

Harrelson is not a party to any lawsuit or other action brought by the Justice Department. He is a private citizen. The Justice Department subpoena also demands that the pastor bring any papers or documents that he has to his deposition with government lawyers that relate to or mention Islam and turn them over to the government.

Pastor Steven Harrelson

In addition to Harrelson, other Christian third-party private citizens have also been subpoenaed to reveal under oath their views on Islam and to deliver any documents they possess related to Islam to federal attorneys.

The Justice Department case alleges that Culpeper County refused to grant a permit to allow the Islamic Center of Culpeper to pump and haul away sewage. The case was brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The mosque purchased land that was unsuitable for a septic system at the time of purchase.

The United States Department of Justice is pursuing the case against Culpeper County and forcing a Christian pastor and other Christians to testify under oath about their views on Islam even though the mosque itself has already settled all claims with the county. (Full settlement here).

The fact that the mosque settled with the county led one federal judge to call into question the Justice Department’s zeal to continue to pursue the case even though the purported victim is satisfied and will be building a mosque:

At a federal court hearing Friday at which the county argued to dismiss the suit for a second time, Judge Moon sided with Culpeper in providing his take on the sustained complaint, saying the continued litigation still puts the Islamic Center at odds with the county.

“It’s an artificial division of a settlement agreement. They tried to come together, said they would try to live together peaceably, now it seems you are putting a wedge between the county and the Islamic Center of Culpeper,” he told the federal attorney arguing against dismissing the case. The Justice Dept.’s continued pursuit of the lawsuit does not help the Islamic Center, Moon added.

The underlying action is a controversial civil court case alleging that Culpeper County discriminated in zoning decisions regarding an application to build a mosque.  The case was filed a month after President Trump was elected but before the inauguration by Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta. It has continued with unbroken zeal.

Federal law prohibits discrimination in zoning practices against religions. During the Obama administration, a radical new argument was pressed by DOJ lawyers: that zoning boards can be saddled with any “naked animus or resistance from the community.” In other words, if some people don’t want a mosque in the community, then any zoning decision against the mosque must be because of citizen opposition. It’s the everyone-is-racist if anyone-is-racist theory advanced by academia and others.

The lawyers on the subpoena documents are listed as Onjil McEachin and Sameena Shina Majeed.

Onjil McEachin came to the Justice Department in the last couple of years from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where McEachin’s office was deeply involved in advancing disparate impact legal theories to prove racial discrimination.

Sameena Majeed was formerly a lawyer with the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia and won the Steere Prize in Women’s Studies at Yale for her work entitled “Feminist Voices: An Ethnographic Examination of Feminist Consciousness in Urban Pakistani Women.”

The case was brought by the Civil Rights Division’s Housing and Civil Enforcement Section. The hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division under President Obama has been the feature of PJ Media’s Every Single One series and an inspector general Report of the Department of Justice. (The lawyers featured in the Every Single One Series from that section can be viewed here.) After obtaining resumes of lawyer hires after PJ Media was forced to file a lawsuit against the DOJ, the series revealed that under President Obama, every single one of the lawyers hired was a partisan or ideological leftist. This led the inspector general to recommend that the department end certain hiring criteria that have led to the perception that only lawyers of a certain leftist ideological perspective are hired.

Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez refused to implement the recommendations of the inspector general.

The Washington Post obtained and reported information in a story about the controversial case that the Culpeper sheriff had conducted seminars on jihadi networks in the United States — a fact the Washington Post found to be relevant to the zoning dispute.

The county sheriff has previously come under fire for hosting a seminar on “Jihadi Networks in America” led by a former FBI agent who claims terrorists control most leading American Muslim groups.

Since President Trump’s inauguration, the notorious Civil Rights Division has been run by caretakers without a Senate-confirmed political appointee head. President Trump has appointed Eric Dreiband to head the Civil Rights Division.

Next week, senators have a chance to ask about whether it is a good use of resources to subpoena Christian pastors to ask them about their views on Islam when in a case where the primary parties have already settled.

U.S. town bans residents from criticizing mosque

WND, by Bob Unruh, August 2, 2017:

A New Jersey township that was sued by Muslims for refusing to approve a massive mosque project is returning to court because of a settlement agreement that restricts speech regarding Islam.

The settlement required the township to hold a public meeting about the mosque project, but it forbade anyone from commenting on “Islam” or “Muslims.”

A key tenet of Shariah, the Muslim law that governs both personal and political life, bans any negative comments about Islam or Muslims.

According to the Thomas More Law Center, which sued the township on behalf of two residents whose home is within 200 feet of the proposed mega-mosque, the settlement with Bernards Township “reads more like an instrument of surrender.”

The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge sued and won a decision in federal court after its mosque proposal was rejected based on traffic and other concerns.

The Township agreed on a $3.5 million payment and a “public hearing to approve the settlement.”

Residents Christopher and Loretta Quick challenged the agreement in court, arguing it restricts speech and violates the Establishment Clause by preferring Islam over other religions.

“The Quicks reside within 200 feet of the proposed mosque construction in a zoned residential area,” Thomas More explained. “Yet, the settlement agreement prohibits them from describing the many unique features of Islamic worship which will impact design of the building, traffic density, water and sewage, traffic control problems, road construction, and parking arrangements. According to the settlement agreement, ISBR is permitted to make statements concerning Christians and Jews and their places of worship, but in contrast, the agreement prohibits commentary relating to Islam or Muslims. In fact, ISBR has previously discussed the Christian and Jewish religions and their places of worship.”

Richard Thompson, chief counsel for Thomas More, said the Islamic center “has taken the extraordinary step of concealing significant links on their website to a radical group named by the federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in America history, the Islamic Society of North America (‘ISNA’).”

“ISNA is claimed by the Muslim Brotherhood as one of ‘our organizations.’ According to internal documents seized by the FBI, the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy is to engage in a ‘grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,’” said Thompson.

He said that while “claiming that the township had a religious animus against Muslims, ISBR hid from the public view its animus toward Christians and Jews, by not only hiding anti-Christian and anti-Semitic verses published on its website, but also hiding its significant ties to ISNA.”

“Instead of standing up to defend its citizens against ISBR’s hate-filled anti-Semitic and anti-Christian bias, the township colluded with ISBR’s ‘Civilization Jihad’ by capitulating to payment of millions of dollars to ISBR, allowing the construction of the new mosque and Islamic center in violation of zoning codes, and now even suppressing speech concerning Islam or Muslims at a public meeting,” Thompson said.

IslamThreat.com estimates there were nearly 3,200 mosques in the United States as of 2015, with a massive surge following the 9/11 terror attack by Muslims.

The website lists 525 mosques in California, 507 in New York, 302 in Texas, 200 in Illinois and 186 in Florida.

The Islamic center sued the township when officials refused to permit a huge project on a lot critics contend is far too small. Later, U.S. Department of Justice, then under Barack Obama, also sued the township.

The new complaint argues the First Amendment provides no open door for governments to issue blanket censorship orders on speech.

“Defendants … have put in place a prior restraint on speech that bans citizens from engaging in free speech at a public hearing on political matters because of the content,” the complaint asserts.

“The settlement agreement further allows defendants to forbid speech with which they or others disagree.”

Further, the fact that the agreement doesn’t provide the same protections to Christians, Jews and others means that “defendants have shown preference for Islam and Muslims over other religions.”

The complaint seeks a declaration that the residents’ constitutional rights are being violated, preliminary and permanent injunctions against the agreement, and damages.

WND reported earlier this year citizens fought back after the personal communications of critics of the Basking Ridge project were subpoenaed in the case.

Neighborhood residents, including Lori Caratzola, were named by ISBR in its lawsuit as a fervent opponent of the mosque. Caratzola faced demands for all of her personal communications that mention Muslims, Islam, mosques, the Quran, imams, burkas, hijabs, Shariah, jihad and other features of Islam.

“ISBR is setting a dangerous unconstitutional precedent by abusing a court process to chill and trample on the First Amendment rights of private citizens whose only involvement was to speak out against the mosque at public hearings,” Thompson said at the time.

He asked for the subpoenas to be thrown out “because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech at a public place on a matter of public concern is entitled to special protection.”

Caratzola charged the Muslims’ intent with her was “to embarrass, strike fear, silence and cause financial harm to any citizen who dared oppose his nonconforming project.”

Islamic Society with Questionable Background Joins Forces with Justice Department to Intimidate Citizens Opposing Mosque

Thomas More Law Center, April 18, 2017:

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) has learned that the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (“ISBR”), which was trying to obtain zoning changes to build a mosque in Bernards Township, NJ, has hidden from public view anti-Christian and anti-Semitic verses on its website, as well as its connection to the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”)— an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in America.  ISNA is claimed by the Muslim Brotherhood as one of “our organizations and . . . our friends.”  According to internal documents seized by the FBI, the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy is to engage in a “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within . . .”—one of the stages of this civilization jihad is the building of mosques and Islamic centers.

Plaintiffs ISBR and Mohammad Ali Chaudry sued in March 2016, claiming that the denial of zoning changes to permit a mosque violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) of 2000 and reflected community “religious and cultural animus against Muslims.”  Within a week of the ISBR lawsuit, the Justice Department launched its own investigation and filed its own lawsuit.

While a visible link to the quotes below was once contained on the ISBR website, ISBR has now taken the extraordinary step of hiding the links from public view.  Accordingly, the quotes cannot be found through a simple internet search or a view of the public portion of ISBR’s website, they can only be found by access to the direct links here:

“Ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.”

“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).”

“And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; … .”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI entered the case solely to protect the constitutional rights of several Bernards Township citizens who exercised their fundamental right to publicly oppose proposed zoning changes.

These private citizens had no authority to deny the zoning application; nor did they have any official role in the Township.  Nevertheless, they were served with burdensome and harassing subpoenas which demanded: all their email addresses and social media accounts; all personal documents including emails, voicemails, text messages, and social media posts concerning Muslims, Islam, mosques, the Quran, Muslim worship or prayer services, wudu, imams, burkas, hijabs, Sharia, jihad, or anything else associated with or related to Muslims or Islam; any object inscribed with or containing the words “Preserve Liberty Corner,” or anti-mosque signs, flyers, banners, email messages, or pamphlets, distributed or otherwise existing at any time within the Township.  In addition, Department of Justice (“DOJ”) lawyers began a new front of intimidation by directly contacting these private citizens, asking them to come in for interviews concerning the mosque.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “Under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Justice Department, using politically driven DOJ attorneys, weaponized itself against fundamental constitutional principles to intimidate American citizens with whom they disagreed.  Immediately after the San Bernardino terrorist attack and just months before DOJ inserted itself into this case, Ms. Lynch made the infamous statement chilling free speech: ‘…when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric…. when we see that we will take action.’  This is exactly what happened to the citizens of Bernards Township. DOJ attorneys initiated a deep state inquisition, seeking to bring citizens objecting to the mosque in for questioning.”

Click here to read previous TMLC press release on Subpoenas.

Also see:

Turkish Govt Opened $100m Mosque in Washington DC as Turkish Intel Spied From Mosques Across Europe

PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, APRIL 2, 2017:

Editor’s Note: See Patrick Poole’s related article from yesterday, “Mosques Spying for Turkish Intelligence in Germany Prompt Raids, Government Probe

One year ago today Turkey’s president Recep Erdogan was in the Washington D.C. area to open a new $100 million mosque complex funded by the Turkish government and operated by the Diyanet, Turkey’s religious affairs ministry.

Needless to say, the opening of the Diyanet complex received national and international media attention:

But not without controversy:

But on the one year anniversary of the opening of the Diyanet Center of America, questions about its true purpose are raised by ongoing investigations by European officials into widespread spying allegations implicating Turkish government-funded Diyanet mosques across the continent – just like the one opened outside of Washington D.C. – spying on behalf of the the Turkish intelligence service, the Milli Istihbarat Teskilati (MIT).

Yesterday, I reported here at PJ Media on the investigations in Germany, where authorities have conducted raids targeting Diyanet imams and high ranking officers of the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), the official arm of the Diyanet in Germany.

Read more

Outrageous Unconstitutional Intimidation of Private Citizens Who Opposed Mosque Project; Thomas More Law Center Steps In

Thomas More Law Center, March 28, 2017:

ANN ARBOR, MI – If you speak out against building a mosque in your community, you may be slapped with a subpoena demanding all your personal documents, including emails, voicemails, text messages, and social media posts concerning Muslims, Islam, mosques, the Quran, Muslim worship or prayer services, wudu, imams, burkas, hijabs, Sharia, jihad, or anything else associated with or related to Muslims or Islam.

This was part of the harassment and intimidation experienced by scores of private citizens of the small New Jersey town, Bernards Township (also known as Basking Ridge), who spoke out at public hearings against a plan to build a disproportionately-sized mosque on a small piece of residential property.  The mosque project, sponsored by the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (“ISBR”) and its president, Mohammad Ali Chaudry, was denied by Township officials for not complying with local building ordinances.

On March 10, 2016, ISBR and Mohammad Ali Chaudry sued Bernards Township in federal court, claiming various violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  Shortly after, ISBR had coercive subpoenas served on private citizens whose only involvement was voicing concerns at public planning board meetings about whether the proposed mosque complied with local building ordinances.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, permission to represent, without charge, several of these citizens who desired to quash the coercive and abusive subpoenas.  Westfield, New Jersey attorney Michael P. Hrycak is assisting the Law Center.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “ISBR is setting a dangerous unconstitutional precedent by abusing a court process to chill and trample on the First Amendment Rights of private citizens whose only involvement was to speak out against the mosque at public hearings. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech at a public place on a matter of public concern is entitled to special protection, we will ask the Federal District Court to quash the subpoenas served on our clients as a misuse and abuse of the Court’s process.”

Lori Caratzola, described in the ISBR Complaint as a fervent and frequent objector to the mosque, was a prime target for ISBR’s personal attacks.  She was personally mentioned over a dozen times in their Complaint.  Yet she has remained steadfast in her opposition.  Ms. Caratzola commented:

“Being served with a Federal Court Subpoena to turn over all my personal communications including voicemails, social media, emails, notes wherein I make any mention of anything having to do with Islam is an absolute violation of my First Amendment rights. I was a citizen exercising my right to attend public planning board meetings about a land use application that affected my community.”

She continued:

“Dr. Chaudry’s clear intent was to embarrass, strike fear, silence and cause financial harm to any citizen who dared oppose his nonconforming project.  And if these subpoenas are allowed to stand, it will set a chilling precedent for all citizens who wish to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to free speech and to petition their government.

“I was named numerous times in the Complaint, yet as a non-party, I had no standing to challenge the lies and half-truths told about me.  After the Complaint was filed, mainstream media picked up and repeated these lies and half-truths.”

Caratzola concluded:

“I have lost days, probably weeks, devoting time to trying to find counsel – only to find most attorneys are afraid of challenging an Islamic group in today’s political climate.”

Attorney Karen Lugo, a specialist on constitutional law and zoning issues, echoed Lori Caratzola’s concerns:

“ISBR’s subpoena of private citizens’ communications with local government, as well as all personal email and social media statements related to ‘anything associated with or related to Muslims or Islam’ is in direct violation of speech protections enshrined in the Constitution and in Supreme Court rulings. ISBR’s blatant efforts to chill the free exercise of speech while intimidating local citizens with these subpoenas must not only be denied, but must be rebuked, by the courts.”

Cody Smith, another subpoenaed resident who opposed the Mosque, stated:

“The planning board did exactly what it should have done—set emotions aside and judge ISBR’s application solely on its merits and whether it complied with our local regulations. It’s unfortunate that Dr. Chaudry, the Township’s former mayor, has resorted to an all-out smear campaign and retaliation against residents who exercised their fundamental Constitutional rights of Free Speech in a public forum.”

Soon after ISBR’s lawsuit, DOJ investigators opened another coercive front by attempting to   interview the private citizens who opposed the mosque.  Eight months later, the DOJ filed its own lawsuit against the Township.

Astonishingly, the DOJ was dismissive of an apparent conflict of interest between Mohammad Ali Chaudry and the DOJ’s chief investigator, Caroline Sadlowski, both of whom were serving together on the Center for Religious and Cultural Conflicts board at Drew University.

See Bernards Township Press Release here

Maryland Mosque Lauds Pakistani Assassin

FaceBook photo January 2, 2015

FaceBook photo January 2, 2015

by IPT News  •  Feb 15, 2017

On Sunday, an American mosque glorified a terrorist responsible for killing a Pakistani governor who was critical of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, the Rabwah Times reported.

Salman Taseer, the former governor of Punjab province, became an instant target for radical Islamists after he defended a Christian woman facing blasphemy charges. In 2011, Taseer’s own bodyguard Mumtaz Qadri shot and killed him.

When Qadri was executed for the killing last year, more than 100,000 Pakistanis paid their respects at his funeral.

The Gulzar E Madina Mosque in Pikesville, Md. apparently shared in the mourners’ zeal, hosting a celebration Sunday in Qadri’s memory. The mosque held a traditional “Urs” ceremony usually reserved for holy figures, the Rabwah Times story said.

Days earlier, the mosque advertised the event in the Urdu Times, America’s most distributed Urdu language newspaper. The event featured several speakers spewing radical views, including Syed Saad Ali, an Islamist scholar based in New Jersey.

“Warrior Mumtaz Qadri kissed the noose in love for Prophet Muhammad,” Ali said. “When Qadri was in jail for 5 years what did we do? What effort did we make (for his release)? Why did we not go where he was being held? Qadri did everything for us, and for the love of Islam and we could not even stand by him. People say Islam teaches peace…I say Islam teaches us Ghairat (Honor). Who will now stand up?”

According to the Rabwah Times, the event was “attended by dozens of people including young children and teenagers.”

Pakistan has charged about 1,000 people with blasphemy since 1987, and convictions can carry the death penalty. These laws especially target members of Pakistan’s minority communities, including the Ahmadi and Christians. But the law can be also applied to anyone that is seen as a threat to the government.

Sunday’s event in Maryland is another example of a radical mosque in the United States glorifying terrorists and inciting violence among younger generations. Impressionable children in these contexts view terrorists as heroes and are encouraged to support and violence for Islamist objectives.

Also see: