People have legitimate concerns about mosques going up in their neighborhood. Four separate studies since 1999 all found that 80% of U.S. mosques were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians. There are no countervailing studies that challenge these results. In 1998, Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi leader, visited 114 mosques in the United States. Then he gave testimony before a State Department Open Forum in January 1999, and asserted that 80% of American mosques taught the “extremist ideology.” Then there was the Center for Religious Freedom’s 2005 study, and the Mapping Sharia Project’s 2008 study. Each independently showed that upwards of 80% of mosques in America were preaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity ultimately to impose Islamic rule.
In the summer of 2011 came another study showing that only 19% of mosques in U.S. don’t teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacism. Specifically: “A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshiper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.” That means that around 1,700 mosques in the U.S. are preaching hatred of infidels and justifying violence against them.
But none of this is allowed to be a consideration when a mosque is proposed for a particular area. It must be assumed by all parties that the mosque will be entirely benign and peaceful, and no different from a synagogue or church. So community leaders try to find other ways to keep mosques out — only to find themselves facing the full weight of Barack Obama’s Justice Department. And then it becomes a matter of having one’s career ruined and life destroyed, or approving the mosque.
“Justice Dept. sues NJ township for rejecting mosque,” by Kelly Cohen, Washington Examiner, November 22, 2016:
The Justice Department announced on Tuesday it is suing Bernards Township, N.J., because it denied zoning approval for the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge to build a mosque on land it owns.
The township in December unanimously voted down the Islamic Society’s application to build a mosque, which the Justice Department says violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
In the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the department said the denial was discriminatory based on the Islamic Society’s members’ religion. The denial imposed a substantial burden on the Islamic Society’s religious exercise, according to the complaint, it said.
The complaint also alleged that the township violated the law “by amending its zoning ordinance in a manner that imposes unreasonable limitations on all religious assemblies.”
According to Justice Department officials, the land where the Islamic Society wanted to build the mosque is located in a zone that permitted construction of places of worship as a matter of right at the time of the zoning request.
“As alleged in the complaint, Bernards Township has treated the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge differently than other houses of worship,” said U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Paul Fishman in a statement. “RLUIPA ensures that municipalities must treat religious land use applications like any other land use application. But here, township officials kept moving the goalposts by using ever-changing local requirements to effectively deny this religious community the same access as other faiths.”…