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:

The purge of a report on radical Islam has put NYC at risk

Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, April 15, 2017:

The NYPD has had a stellar track record of protecting the city from another 9/11, foiling more than 20 planned terrorist attacks since 2001. But some worry the department is losing its terror-fighting edge as it tries to please Muslim grievance groups.

Last year, for instance, it censored an anti-terror handbook to appease offended Muslims, even though it has accurately predicted radicalization patterns in recent “homegrown” terror cases. Rank-and-file NYPD officers, detectives and even intelligence and counterterrorism units are officially barred now from referring to the handbook or the scientific study on which it was based.

Former law-enforcement officials fear its removal as a training tool may be hurting efforts to prevent terrorist activity, such as the vehicle-ramming attacks plaguing European cities.

“The report was extremely accurate on how the radicalization process works and what indicators to look for,” said Patrick Dunleavy, former deputy inspector general of the New York state prisons’ criminal-intelligence division, who also worked with the NYPD’s intelligence division for several years.

Mayor de Blasio agreed in January 2016 to purge the remarkably prescient police training guide “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat” to help settle a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Muslim groups who claimed the NYPD’s anti-terror training discriminated against Muslims.

Written 10 years ago, the seminal NYPD report detailing the religious steps homegrown terrorists take toward radicalization is now more relevant than ever, with recent terror suspects closely following those steps. But in 2007, the same year the study was released, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) organized a protest against it, complaining it “casts suspicion on all US Muslims.” Even though federal law enforcement has long-shunned CAIR as a suspected terrorist front organization, “groups like CAIR were insistent on having it removed, and de Blasio caved into them,” Dunleavy said.

Under the city’s unusual settlement agreement, the NYPD as well as New York state agencies were forced to remove its 90-page anti-terror study — described by plaintiffs as “deeply flawed” and “inflammatory” — from databases and no longer rely on it “to open or extend investigations” into terrorist activities. Also, police must now commit to “mitigating the potential impact” of any counterterrorism investigation on the Muslim community.

The deal has had a chilling effect on other city police forces’ ability to use fact-based, trend analysis to develop terrorism cases, experts say. They warn that purging such studies deprives local law enforcement of the ability to understand how ISIS and other jihadists recruit, organize and operate — which is critical to disrupting terrorism plots.

“The FBI has its hands full with over 1,000 open cases on ISIS terrorist suspects already in the US,” former FBI Agent John Guandolo said, “and it needs the help of well-trained eyes and ears on the ground at the local and state level.”

“The bad guys know if police don’t know this stuff at the ground level, they win,” added Guandolo, who trains sheriffs departments across the country to ID local jihadi networks through his consulting firm, Understanding the Threat LLC.

The authors of the report, led by Mitch Silber, former NYPD director of intelligence analysis, examined hundreds of “homegrown” terrorism cases and found that suspects followed the same “radicalization” path. Key indicators include: alienating themselves from their former lives and friends; giving up cigarettes, drinking and partying; wearing traditional Islamic clothing; growing a beard; becoming obsessed with Mideast politics and jihad; and regularly attending a hardline mosque. In other words, the more they immersed themselves in their faith, the more radical they grew.

“You can take all the terrorist cases since that report and compare the information on the subject and the case and see stark similarities to what Mitch laid out,” Dunleavy noted.

The terrorists who carried out recent attacks in Boston; Fort Hood, Texas; Little Rock, Ark.; Chattanooga, Tenn.; San Bernardino, Fla.; Orlando; Philadelphia and at Ohio State University, among others, followed a similar pattern of radicalization. In each case, the Muslim attacker was influenced through “incubators of extremism” within the Muslim community, including Islamic student associations, schools, bookstores and mosques. Jihadi websites also played a role, but what unifies them all is Islamic doctrine. As the NYPD study found, “The ultimate objective for any attack is always the same — to punish the West, overthrow the democratic order, re-establish the caliphate, and institute Sharia,” or Islamic law.

“The radicalizer is Sharia, not the Internet,” said Philip Haney, a former Homeland Security counterterrorism analyst. Haney says the feds are plagued by their own PC censorship. Bowing to pressure from CAIR and other Muslim groups, Homeland Security and the Justice Department have purged anti-terrorism training materials and fired instructors deemed offensive to Muslims. CAIR-launched protests also helped convince the FBI to recently suspend an Internet program aimed at preventing the radicalization of Muslim youth.

“If we fail to correct this situation, it is inevitable that more attacks will occur,” warned Haney, author of “See Something, Say Nothing.”

The NYPD did not respond to requests for comment.

Paul Sperry, a former Hoover Institution media fellow, is the author of several books on terrorism including the best-seller “Infiltration.”

***

The report is available on Amazon in paperback:

 

Londonistan: 423 New Mosques; 500 Closed Churches

Gatestone Institute, by Giulio Meotti, April 2, 2017:

  • British multiculturalists are feeding Islamic fundamentalism. Muslims do not need to become the majority in the UK; they just need gradually to Islamize the most important cities. The change is already taking place.
  • British personalities keep opening the door to introducing Islamic sharia law. One of the leading British judges, Sir James Munby, said that Christianity no longer influences the courts and these must be multicultural, which means more Islamic. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Chief Justice Lord Phillips, also suggested that the English law should “incorporate” elements of sharia law.
  • British universities are also advancing Islamic law. The academic guidelines, “External speakers in higher education institutions”, provide that “orthodox religious groups” may separate men and women during events. At the Queen Mary University of London, women have had to use a separate entrance and were forced to sit in a room without being able to ask questions or raise their hands, just as in Riyadh or Tehran.

“London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries put together”, according to Maulana Syed Raza Rizvi, one of the Islamic preachers who now lead “Londonistan“, as the journalist Melanie Phillips has called the English capital. No, Rizvi is not a right-wing extremist. Wole Soyinka, a Nobel Laureate for Literature, was less generous; he called the UK “a cesspit for Islamists”.

“Terrorists can not stand London multiculturalism”, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan said after the recent deadly terror attack at Westminster. The opposite is true: British multiculturalists are feeding Islamic fundamentalism. Above all, Londonistan, with its new 423 mosques, is built on the sad ruins of English Christianity.

The Hyatt United Church was bought by the Egyptian community to be converted to a mosque. St Peter’s Church has been converted into the Madina Mosque. The Brick Lane Mosque was built on a former Methodist church. Not only buildings are converted, but also people. The number of converts to Islam has doubled; often they embrace radical Islam, as with Khalid Masood, the terrorist who struck Westminster.

The Daily Mail published photographs of a church and a mosque a few meters from each other in the heart of London. At the Church of San Giorgio, designed to accommodate 1,230 worshipers, only 12 people gathered to celebrate Mass. At the Church of Santa Maria, there were 20.

The nearby Brune Street Estate mosque has a different problem: overcrowding. Its small room and can contain only 100. On Friday, the faithful must pour into the street to pray. Given the current trends, Christianity in England is becoming a relic, while Islam will be the religion of the future.

In Birmingham, the second-largest British city, where many jihadists live and orchestrate their attacks, an Islamic minaret dominates the sky. There are petitions to allow British mosques to call the Islamic faithful to prayer on loudspeakers three times a day.

By 2020, estimates are that the number of Muslims attending prayers will reach at least 683,000, while the number of Christians attending weekly Mass will drop to 679,000. “The new cultural landscape of English cities has arrived; the homogenised, Christian landscape of state religion is in retreat”, said Ceri Peach of Oxford University. While nearly half of British Muslims are under the age of 25, a quarter of Christians are over 65. “In another 20 years there are going to be more active Muslims than there are churchgoers,” said Keith Porteous Wood, director of the National Secular Society.

Since 2001, 500 London churches of all denominations have been turned into private homes. During the same period, British mosques have been proliferating. Between 2012 and 2014, the proportion of Britons who identify themselves as Anglicans fell from 21% to 17%, a decrease of 1.7 million people, while, according to a survey conducted by the respected NatCen Social Research Institute, the number of Muslims has grown by almost a million. Churchgoers are declining at a rate that within a generation, their number will be three times lower than that of Muslims who go regularly to mosque on Friday.

Demographically, Britain has been acquiring an increasingly an Islamic face, in places such as Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets. In 2015, an analysis of the most common name in England showed it was Mohammed, including spelling variations such as Muhammad and Mohammad.

Most important cities have huge Muslim populations: Manchester (15.8%), Birmingham (21.8%) and Bradford (24.7%). In Birmingham, the police just dismantled a terrorist cell; there is also a greater probability that a child will be born into a Muslim family than into a Christian one. In Bradford and Leicester, half the children are Muslim. Muslims do not need to become the majority in the UK; they just need gradually to Islamize the most important cities. The change is already taking place. “Londonistan” is not a Muslim majority nightmare; it is a cultural, demographic and religious hybrid in which Christianity declines and Islam advances.

Thousands of Muslims participate in a public outdoor prayer service in Birmingham, England, on July 6, 2016. (Image source: Ruptly video screenshot)

According to Innes Bowen, writing in The Spectator, only two of the 1,700 mosques in Britain today follow the modernist interpretation of Islam, compared with 56% in the United States. The Wahhabis control six percent of mosques in the UK, while the fundamentalist Deobandi control up to 45%. According to a survey from the Knowledge Center, a third of UK Muslims do not feel “part of British culture.”

London is also full of sharia courts. There are officially 100. The advent of this parallel judicial system has been made possible thanks to the British Arbitration Act and the system of Alternative Dispute Resolution. These new courts are based on the rejection of the inviolability of human rights: the values ​​of freedom and equality that are the basis of English Common Law.

British personalities keep opening the door to introduce sharia. One of Britain’s leading judges, Sir James Munby, said that Christianity no longer influences the courts and these must be multicultural — which means more Islamic. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Chief Justice Lord Phillips also suggested that British law should “incorporate” elements of sharia law. The British cultural establishment is rapidly capitulating to Islamic fundamentalists in accepting their demands.

British universities are also advancing Islamic law. The official guidelines of the university, “External speakers in higher education institutions“, published by Universities UK, provide that “orthodox religious groups” may separate men and women during events. At Queen Mary University of London, women had to use a separate entrance and were forced to sit in a room without being able to ask questions or raise their hands — as in Riyadh or Tehran. The Islamic Society at the London School of Economics held a gala, in which women and men were separated by a seven-meter panel.

After the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, recommended self-censorship and “some restraint” in discussing Islam. The British ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, converted to Islam and completed the pilgrimage to Mecca, the hajj. He now calls himself Haji Collis.

What will be next?

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

UTT Throwback Thursday: The Process of Settlement

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, March 30, 2017:

When the Muslim Brotherhood came to the United States in the 1950’s, it did so with a plan.

As was mentioned in UTT’s article on Monday, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is now openly confirming much of what UTT has been saying for years, but the MB denied until recently.

Recalling their stated objective in the Muslim Brotherhood’s By-Laws to wage jihad to create an Islamic State in America ruled by Sharia law, it should unnerve Americans to know the Muslim Brotherhood built the Islamic network in the United States.

The massive amount of evidence entered into the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), Dallas 2008) reveals the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood built thousands of organizations to further their plan to wage jihad in the United States.

US v HLF Government Exhibit 3-85 is identified by the Department of Justice as a “1991 memorandum authored by U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member Mohamed Akram Adlouni, recognizing ISNA and NAIT as Muslim Brotherhood organizations.”  This is the MB’s “An Explanatory Memorandum” which is the MB’s strategic plan for North America.

In it, Mohamed Akram writes, “The Movement must plan and struggle to obtain ‘the keys’ and the tools of this process in carry(ing) out this grand mission as a ‘Civilization Jihadist’ responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country…The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions…We must say that we are in a country which understands no language other than the language of the organizations, and one which does not respect or give weight to any group without effective, functional and strong organizations.”

After this “recommendation” to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership was published, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood published the “Implementation Manual” in 1992 which enumerates the goals to be achieved, which MB department will be responsible, the timeline, and follow up.  Shortly after the Implementation Manual was published, the MB began creating between 80 and 120 non-profit organizations a year in the United States, and has been doing so ever since.

Today, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood has nearly 800 Muslim Students Associations (MSAs) on every major college and university campus in America (and in some high schools), over 250 Islamic Societies (subsidiaries of ISNA), approximately 80% of the over 3,000 Islamic Centers/Mosques in the U.S. and thousands of businesses, media organizations, legal organizations, medical organizations, trade organizations, and others, all per their own plans.

As military and political leaders from Muslim nations have told U.S. leaders, the Muslim Brotherhood has more control in the United States than anywhere else on the planet.

What will our federal government do about it?

******

To learn more about the MB network in the U.S., get your copy of the DVD “Understanding the Threat to America: The Outlawed Brief,” the book Muslim Mafia about Chris Gaubatz’s undercover experience at Hamas headquarters in Washington, D.C. (doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations – CAIR), and the book Raising a Jihadi Generation at UTT’s online store.

Also see:

Are Mosque Denials a Sign of Anti-Muslim Bias?

mosquesAmerican Thinker, by Karen Lugo, Feb. 14, 2017:

Recent media coverage of two Virginia mosque permit proceedings repeats charges of local bigotry and bias directed at the Islamic organizations. At the same time, news reports featured the same accusations, this time originating from a New Jersey federal judge’s ruling against Bernards Township zoning officials and residents. In all of these cases, the proceedings involved a mosque application to build in a residential or quasi-residential area.

Yet case studies suggest that other priorities may be compelling the residents and municipal officials in the neighborhoods where complex mosque applications are being filed.

For example, in 2011 the city council in Bloomington, Minnesota readily approved an application for the Al Farooq Youth and Family Center (now known as Dar al Farooq) to purchase and occupy a school facility with gym from a Christian organization. The application described a community center with a place of assembly and a private school and day care. Dar al Farooq submissions and testimony committed to maximum attendance of two hundred participants during the most popular Eid services. Based upon these terms, the council agreed to a conditional use permit with few restrictions other than those that would prevent street parking.

The city council could have taken the real-time description of wide-ranging activities presented on DAF’s own website into account. Contrary to public testimony, attendance was immediately hundreds higher than promised, parking consistently overflowed onto neighborhood streets, and unapproved activities were added including advertised university classes and an administrative office. Five years later, these complaints, and more, persist. Events still run late into the night with hundreds of cars coming and going for services throughout the night during month-long Ramadan observances.

The vital questions in mosque cases are: do community members have valid concerns regarding unique mosque practices, and are they right to expect that these questions will be addressed during the hearing process? As with any religious application to site a facility, it should not be a surprise that residents are anxious to know the levels and intensity of activities coming to their neighborhoods.

When all of societal, familial, and religious life is centered in the mosque complex, there will be a number of daily activities with comings and goings that overlap or occur in rapid succession. The entire month of Ramadan may entail burdensome traffic and heavily attended events. But most conflicts occur over traffic for the peak Friday prayer service that is held during the workday on Fridays. Attendees for this peak weekday service are more likely to arrive solo as they come from work, delivery routes, or taxi services. The fact that this meeting is on a Friday often implicates traffic and congestion concerns related to nearby school schedules. It is reasonable to expect that these traffic and parking plans will need to be considered. Residents are right to want reliable answers and to expect a use permit that protects residential interests as well as religious siting rights.

Delicate balancing is required to avoid discriminatory results and many local land use planners are not prepared to administer the legally complicated proceedings. Some local officials are volunteers and most are part-time. Many are not educated to competently address the complex and technical regulatory issues underlying religious applications. Behind the officials on the dais are municipal attorneys and municipal insurance carriers that caution against risking these difficult and costly lawsuits.

A federal law known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was designed to aid religious organizations that were not getting a fair shake at city hall. This law, as passed in 2000, makes it very difficult for municipalities to “substantially burden” religious applicants and they may not discriminate between faith groups or favor secular assemblies over religious ones.

As a force multiplier for Muslim applicants, the DOJ has intervened in response to Islamic complaints of even “subtle, hard-to-prove discrimination” at an unprecedented rate over the last eight years.

In keeping with the DOJ’s focus on expanding legal discrimination theory, an Obama-appointed judge who ruled against Bernards Township in the New Jersey case, determined that the religious basis for the core complaint excused the usual requirement to justify his findings with comparative examples that would demonstrate discrimination. This was, as he acknowledged in his written opinion, a departure from controlling appellate precedent. He also concluded that he was not required to prove that officials intended to discriminate.

There is understandable tension between federal religious facility siting protections and the state zoning authority that vests local officials with the responsibility to protect the “quiet, use and enjoyment” rights of residential homeowners. Complying with federal and state law — while still fulfilling the civic duty to protect homeowner interests — requires careful documentation and evenhanded application of ordinances in the permitting process.

Most importantly, the entire process, including the all-important final permit and terms, demands accurate testimony from the applicant. For both of the Virginia proceedings noted above, zoning officials and community members investigated external sources to learn that there were many more activities planned for the mosque site than indicated on the application. All permit allowances and enforcement mechanisms, including potential revocation of the permit, will rely on the level of precision that informs the final agreement.

Whether the religious land use application is Islamic, Christian, or Jewish, municipalities should establish a broad line of informed questions. Officials should tailor ordinances to flexibly adapt to unique applicant usage patterns. For example, in the interest of addressing traffic and parking concerns in an evenhanded way, some localities have implemented a trip count methodology to regulate the numbers of entries to a specified parking lot during the highest traffic residential periods.

Rather than reflexive complaints that diligent inquiries on behalf of neighborhood residents into traffic, sewer, parking, and occupancy loads are a cover for discrimination, Islamic applicants might first focus on the accurate testimony needed for a respectful relationship with zoning officials and concerned residents. Like the fences that make good neighbors in some cases, facts and realistic expectations are essential to a working three-way contract between local government, the neighborhood, and a busy socio-religious complex.

Karen Lugo, constitutional lawyer, and author of Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight.

Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight

2769299001

Center for Security Policy, December 15, 2016:

(Washington, D.C.): Communities that face new mosque construction in residential neighborhoods confront a series of vexing questions. These include:  What overarching state and federal laws apply?  What is the role that local zoning planners must play? What oversight opportunity may exist for local residents? And how might communities take a constructive approach to investigating and holding accountable potential venues for Islamist radicalization?

In response to these and other pressing local concerns, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to announce the publication of a practical primer for assessing mosque land use applications.  Entitled Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight, this new book provides much-needed insights into the local planning process and the federal law that governs religious land use applications.

Written by constitutional law attorney Karen Lugo, Mosques in America describes how citizens can work through and complement legal land use regulatory procedures.  It profiles two exemplary case studies that demonstrate the contrasting approaches taken recently by Bloomington, Minnesota.  These examples – one involving an Islamic organization and the other an evangelical Christian congregation – provide insights into the local planning process, as well as the policy priorities that may guide local procedures.  The city’s disparate handling of these similar applications demonstrates the potential for strikingly unequal treatment that religious facilities may experience as in this case, the Christian one was subjected to intensive scrutiny and ultimately rejected, while officials gave the other, Islamic one a series of passes – even after it began violating agreements post-approval.

A particularly important contribution is the guide’s illumination of the vague and confusing standards presented in the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (RLUIPA) that have contributed to inconsistent results. Ms. Lugo concludes that, under the Obama Justice Department, a growing number of recent interventions in Islamic cases are tipping the scales:

RLUIPA was passed to put religious organizations on equal footing with each other and with secular assembly uses.  It is not intended to be an affirmative- action mechanism.

Federal law under the RLUIPA provides strong protections for religious practices including the siting of a worship and gathering site. On the other hand, those residing in surrounding neighborhoods deserve realistic predictions, including those concerning attendance levels and expected frequency and hours of events.

Ms. Lugo’s guide also offers helpful information to citizens about the land use application hearing process – a procedure that is supposed to afford communities with quasi-judicial hearings, forums meant to provide the careful attention to facts required to achieve accurate findings.

Particularly important is the valuable guidance provided in Mosques in America about how the public can constructively engage with mosques and mosque leadership outside of “city hall” proceedings.  She commends in this connection the efforts of reformist Muslims and suggests as a metric for assessing potential radicalization in accountable dialogues with mosque leadership the standard set by the constitutionally aligned “Declaration of the Muslim Reform Movement.”  It explicitly embraces separation of mosque and state, equal rights for women, free speech, and freedom of religion (including the choice to have no religious affiliation or to forsake a religion).

On the occasion of the publication of Mosques in America, Frank J. Gaffney, the President of the Center for Security Policy, observed:

Karen Lugo is one of the foremost experts in the United States on matters involving religious land use applications.  She has monitored citizen efforts across the country as they hold accountable both local officials and applicants who navigate the complex legal and political terrain associated with religious land use applications in America.  Her new guide will enable vastly larger numbers of citizens and communities to benefit from her counsel.

Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com.

pdf

photoshop-ccscreensnapz006

Are Mosques Muslim “Churches?”

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, December 11, 206:

“But is the mosque only for prayers?  No.  The mosque is the center for all Islamic activity as it used to be in the mosques of the Prophet in Medina.  In these mosques, not only prayers took, place, but it was a school of knowledge where companions used to study the Quran and ask questions.  It was a place for the Government to receive delegations from foreign countries.  It was a treasury from which charity work was done and it was a war-room where decisions and planning for wars imposed on Muslims were made.”  A Quote from Islam-USA.com on Mosques

dic

The $110 million Diyanet Islamic Center of America opened in April 2016 in Lanham, Maryland.  The opening was hosted by Turkish President Ergodan

Many people in the West are significantly confused about the true nature of a mosque.

To understand what a mosque is, one must first understand what Islam is. To be a “muslim” is to be one who submits to Islam. To submit to Islam is to submit to the law of Allah – sharia.  100% of all sharia mandates jihad until the world is under Islamic rule (sharia).  Jihad is only defined in sharia as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

The mosque is the center of all life in the Islamic community.  Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life (social, cultural, military, political, legal and religious)” and the mosque is the center of all things social, cultural, military, political, legal and religious.

In a video HERE, former Islamic scholar and professor of sharia, Sam Solomon (name he uses since his conversion to Christianity), details a mosque is the center of Islamic government and much more than a place to pray.

According to Islam, the perfect example for all mankind is Mohammad.  The koran says so.

“And thou (Mohammad) standest on an exalted standard of character.”  Koran 68:4

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern of conduct for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.”  Koran 33:21

Why do Muslims step their right foot into the mosque first? Because Mohammad did it.

Why is it unlawful for Muslim men to wear gold? Because Mohammad forbid it.

Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry a 7 year old girl? Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the relationship when she was 9.

Why is it okay for Muslims to war against non-Muslims? Because Mohammad said it and Mohammad did it.

How did Mohammad use the first mosque in Medina?  It was used for: social gatherings; for legal rulings; for teaching Islam; for storing food, water, ammunition and weapons; for housing jihadis; for planning battles; and it was the place from which jihadi was launched.

Mosques are the center of the Islamic State, and the places from which Islam enforces its will on the community and on the world.

This is why all over the world, military and security services continue to find weapons and explosives in mosques, and the mosques teach jihad is obligatory for the muslim community.

The mosques our military went into in Iraq and Afghanistan had weapons.

The mosques recently raided by European security officials had weapons or evidence of weapons and/or explosives training.

As a matter of fact, UTT’s Chris Gaubatz went into mosques around the United States posing as a Muslim and discovered most of them advocate violence and have literature advocating/supporting violence against non-Muslims.

The “Mapping Sharia” research project conducted between May 2007 and May 2010, reveals 51% of U.S. mosques advocate violence and another 30% have texts that support violence.

The Center for Religious Freedom (Freedom House) published a report in 2005 – with Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey as its Chairman – revealing a large number of mosques in America are owned and funded by the government of Saudi Arabia, and teach American muslims they must wage jihad against non-Muslims, hate non-Muslims, and they can never truly be “citizens” of a non-Muslim state, among other things.

Canadian officials publicly admit “extremist” literature calling for violence against unbelievers is “common” in mosques in Canada (Aug 2016).

Here are some other noteworthy news stories affirming mosques are not simply places of worship for Muslims:

After the jihadi (“terrorist”) attacks in Tunisia in the summer of 2015, the Tunisian government moved to close 80 of the 100 remaining mosques there.  The head of Tunisia’s association of imams said police searches uncovered weapons in 40 mosques around the country in 2014.

The largest mosque in Madrid was a jihadi recruitment center run by a former prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba U.S. facility for terrorists (Dec 2014).

One of the largest mosques in Switzerland was raided because the Imam instructed his followers that Muslims who do not attend mosque and pray should be killed (Nov 2016).

Netherlands authorities thwarted a plot centered at a mosque to massacre Jews at a local synagogue (Nov 2016).

Germans raided and closed a Mosque for teaching ISIS Ideology – ie Islam (Dec 2014).

The Oklahoma Mosque attended by jihadi Alton Nolen, who beheaded his co-worker, taught attendees they must establish a caliphate under sharia and destroy the US (Sep 2014).

Russian officials arrested the Imam of a Mosque and found explosives there (Jan 2016).

At two separate mosques in Afghanistan in (March 2014) and (April 2016) Muslims blew themselves up in the mosques while making explosives.

Danish police found machetes in mosque they raided (June 2014).

A large mosque in Gaza was struck by Israeli military officials because it contained weapons (July 2014).

mosques

In April 2015 the Imam of the Grand Mosque called for an all out war against all Shiites and Christians. This Imam is one of the most respected leaders in the Islamic world.

The chairman of Al Azhar (who is ranked #1 among the 500 most influential muslims on the planet) calls for jihad against unbelievers.  Al Azhar University is the oldest and most respect school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world.

This might explain why in Denmark only 14% of mosques distance themselves from ISIS and ISIS ideology (April 2015).

For more information see UTT’s article “What is the Purpose of Islamic Centers/Mosques in America” from January 2016.

UTT Asks You to Consider 3 Simple Action Items:

  1.  Know the threat.  Use UTT as a resource for research.
  2. Bring the UTT 3-Day law enforcement program “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Network” to your area so those charged with protecting you know this too.
  3. Ensure your pastors and rabbis are sharing this truth with their flocks so as to protect them and the broader community.

And, as always, ensure your local leaders know CAIR is Hamas so when CAIR starts yapping to con your leaders into believing they are friendly, your leaders will know better and treat them like the terrorists they are.