The Guardian report continues:
How did a small-town property dispute turn into a religious war, with legal and symbolic implications for all of America? Part of the answer has to do with the country’s labyrinthine land-use laws, which leave most control to state and local governments, which are in turn vulnerable to the furies of angry mobs. Part of it has to do with America’s love of litigation. The inherently confrontational and intrusive legal process had a radicalising effect on the town, driving some opponents of the development to extremes.’
This “property dispute” turned into a “religious war” only because Mr. Chaudry was insistent on making it so. He had a right to appeal the decision made against him by the zoning board, but instead he lawyered up, having decided instead to sue the township, and to turn that zoning dispute into what it never had been, a “religious war.” In order to overcome the will of neighbors who opposed the granting of a zoning variance for the building of a mosque in a heavily residential area, because of the noise and commotion increased traffic would bring, it quickly became a morality tale, where the bigoted townsfolk, an incipient anti-Muslim mob (cf. the reporter’s bizarre remark about the “furies of angry mobs” — when was the last time?) were finally stopped in their tracks by the altogether admirable Mohammad Ali Chaudry and his team of lawyers.
But something else deeper and darker seemed to be at work. Some residents openly discussed Islamophobic conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the mosque was meant to send a message of conquest, due to its proximity to the town’s September 11 memorial. Such crackpot notions, promoted by far-right ideologues such as Pamela Geller and Frank Gaffney, used to be confined to the margins of the internet. Then Trump embraced the Islamophobes, unabashedly.
It is not a “crackpot notion” to think that many Muslims see their mosques as more than just houses of worship. It was Recep Tayyip Erdogan who famously said that “our mosques are our barracks.”
If the zoning board were, as Chaudry has claimed, so motivated by anti-Islamic animus, then why did it hold 39 hearings on the mosque application — far more than were ever accorded any other requests for a zoning variance — thus giving Chaudry both ample time and even guidance to modify his plan so as to meet that board’s objections? The zoning board, like the townspeople who showed up to express their opposition, seemed to be most concerned with the actual number of people who would be visiting the mosque, which — unlike a church, where visitors would ordinarily be expected for services only on Sunday — would be visited not just on Fridays, but throughout the week, for at least some of the five required daily prayers. There were other questions: was there enough parking space, or too much? How many people were expected to regularly attend the mosque? Would any of them be using the mosque for the early-morning or late-evening prayers? How did Mr. Chaudry calculate their numbers, and how often would they would be visiting the proposed mosque? These are all legitimate questions for a zoning board to consider.
The Guardian reporter continues:
“It’s like his [Trump’s] election has given permission to people,” Chaudry told me the first time we met. We were at the proposed site of the mosque, sitting in the old suburban house that he was still hoping to demolish. Its living room, dominated by a large stone fireplace, was filled with boxes of donated clothes that he was preparing to deliver to a family of Syrian refugees. The many bookshelves were lined with theological texts and stacked copies of a paperback that Chaudry likes to give out, Islam Denounces Terrorism. Standing on an easel in a corner was a poster-sized rendering of the proposed mosque. In an effort to make it fit into its suburban surroundings, it had been designed to resemble a mini-mansion, with gray clapboard siding, a pitched roof with asphalt shingles, dormer windows and minarets disguised as chimneys.
So the mosque is planned, we are assured, to fit architecturally into the neighborhood (grey clapboard siding, pitched roof with asphalt shingles, dormer windows), although it’s hard to imagine that minarets could be convincingly “disguised “as chimneys, for they would have to be much taller than any ordinary residential chimneys. As for the depiction of the saintly Mr. Chaudry with “those boxes of donated clothes” for Syrian refugees, perhaps the reporter ought to have looked into that book, Islam Denounces Terrorism, that he likes to give away. It’s a well-known taqiyya text, an incredible farrago of falsehoods, by one Harun Yahya, who is also known as a ferocious critic of evolution. It’s all in Yahya’s mendacious text: Muslims are benevolently inclined toward the “People of the Book,” “Jihad” mainly means an interior struggle to be a good Muslim, Islam denounces violence, and so on and so idiotically forth. Readers who want to see for themselves the kind of stuff Mr. Chaudry is disseminating should go here and read as much as they can stand :
The Guardian:
But the architecture did little to defuse tensions with the surrounding neighbourhood. Liberty Corner considered itself separate from the older and wealthier village of Basking Ridge, though they were both part of the same larger township, and few outsiders recognised the geographical distinction. And as even Chaudry and his allies admitted, some of the locals had a stubborn and ecumenical commitment to protesting anyone who dared to build anything, including Christian churches. People in Liberty Corner expressed an obstreperous [sic] ideology [sic] often abbreviated as “nimby”, for “not in my backyard”.
Here we have a key admission, casually mentioned, but the heart of the problem with the Chaudry Version: “even Chaudry and his allies admitted, some of the locals” opposed “anyone who dared to build anything, including Christian churches.” But if that is so, then there is no need to ascribe “anti-Islam” feelings to those who were strict preservationists, and who were just as hard, or harder, on applications for zoning variances for churches as they were for this mosque.
“The opponents of the mosque told their own story of victimisation, in which they were merely objecting to Chaudry’s oppressive development scheme. “It was always about land use,” one Liberty Corner resident told me. “They made it about religion.” The nimby complainers claimed that the mosque site – a marshy plot on a mainly residential street – was a poor location for a busy house of prayer. When the township planning board took up Chaudry’s proposal in August 2012, signs soon appeared in front yards around town, reading “Preserve Liberty Corner.”
Well, the mosque site was — and remains — “a marshy plot” on a “residential street” (not “mainly” residential — entirely residential, except for the planned mosque). Chaudry does not deny this. The phrase “a busy house of prayer” implies that there will be people arriving seven days a week, for at least some of the five daily prayers. Is there any assurance that they won’t be showing up before sunrise for the first prayer (Salat al-fajr), or after sunset, possibly as late as midnight, for the last prayer (Salat al-isha)? Does Mr. Chaudry not recognize the severe disruption — noise, commotion, traffic — that would bring to a peaceful residential area whose inhabitants would be awakened, or kept awake, by the first and last prayers of the day?
At one of the first planning hearings, a resident named Lori Caratzola stood up to challenge Chaudry. A law graduate, she cross-examined him about the size of the Islamic Society, accusing him of understating its membership. She revealed that she had done surveillance of a Friday service, counting 125 worshippers going into a space with a capacity for 60. After her confrontational performance, Caratzola became a leader of the opposition.
At the public hearings, Caratzola and others confined their criticisms to the nimby issues: drainage, parking, landscaping and the like. They convinced the board that a mosque would need more parking spaces than a church, because midday worshippers would come alone. When the Islamic Society submitted a new plan, with a larger parking lot, the mosque’s opponents protested that, too. It quickly became clear that the opposition was not solely concerned with parking.
Is there something suspect about Lori Caratzola being “a law graduate” who “cross-examined” Mohammad Chaudry? She’s a lawyer, and she found things in Chaudry’s presentation that she believed misrepresented the facts. Should she be faulted for being able to conduct such a cross-examination, apparently one effective enough to make her “a leader of the opposition”? And was there something underhanded about her actually counting the number of worshippers in the current Islamic Society prayer hall, which apparently was far more than Chaudry had assured the town now attended, and presumably that was the number that would now come to the new mosque? Don’t the residents have a right to know the real number of worshippers who will be coming — in their cars — from before sunrise until after sunset to the proposed mosque on a residential street? Chaudry had claimed there were 60 worshippers, but Lori Caratzola, conducting surveillance at Friday Prayers, counted 125.
There are several reasons why opponents might not have been satisfied with the “new plan” for a “larger parking lot.” First, was the parking lot doubled in size? Chaudry had claimed 60 worshippers currently attended the prayer hall. Did the original plan for the mosque’s parking accommodate only those 60? And did the new plan submitted have enough parking space for the 125 worshippers counted by Lori Caratzola? A second reason for not being satisfied with the “new plan” is that having an adequate number of parking spaces, based on a true estimate of the number of worshippers (and not the deliberate undercount by Mr. Chaudry) is only one of the problems the new mosque would pose. Another is that of how often, and at what times, the mosque’s neighbors could expect to have their lives disrupted by mosque traffic. As we know, worshippers could be expected on all seven days of the week, and from very early in the morning to very late at night. This is not a theoretical problem. Large numbers of cars arriving and leaving, noise and disruption conceivably beginning at 5 a.m. and ending at 10 or 11 p.m., are a nuisance to which neighbors in what is supposed to be a residential neighborhood have a perfect right to object. The Guardian’s reporter claims that “the opposition was not solely concerned with parking,” for he wants readers to think it was “islamophobia” that prompted their opposition. True, the opposition “was not solely concerned with parking,” but also with how frequently, and at what hours, significant traffic to and from the mosque could be expected. And one of the original objections — that the mosque was disproportionately large for the plot on which it would be built — also remained.
Bob Carrillo says
The VERY SAME thing has been going on in Bloomington, Minnesota, and relating to the Dar Al-Farooq mosque (an extremely radicalized hotbed for homegrown, and imported terrorist activity), FOR YEARS now.
…Just the same page out of the same abominable Jihad playbook – but different U.S. location this time that’s all…
While reading this, I could have sworn that I was reading about the Bloomington Minnesota problem..
Bob Carrillo says
The VERY SAME thing has been going on in Bloomington, Minnesota, and relating to the Dar Al-Farooq mosque (an extremely radicalized hotbed for homegrown, and imported terrorist activity), FOR YEARS now.
…Just the same page out of the same abominable Jihadist playbook – but a different U.S. location this time, that’s all…
While reading this, I could have sworn that I was reading about the Bloomington, Minnesota problem..
And, once again, They are so so so much the victims of discrimination, “don’t-cha-know”. Just ask them..
Shelley Bayless says
Every time I hear or see written the word “Islamophobia” I want to puke! It’s just another tactic to shut any comments down. The truth is Muslims put that mosque in a residential area on purpose. They claim all the surrounding territory for their god Allah, and I hope everybody is aware of that! Dont be duped or fooled into believing otherwise, but fight however you can!
revereridesagain says
“…the mosque was meant to send a message of conquest, due to its proximity to the town’s September 11 memorial.”
That’s exactly the message it was intended to send, the same intended by the sponsors of the “Ground Zero Mosque” that was shut down by the dedicated efforts of Spencer, Pam Geller, and thousands more of us who knew what that abomination meant. However, the residents of Basking Ridge will probably never hear it in so many words. The ignoramedia, which knows nothing about the actual beliefs of the Islam they constantly defend, can label that statement of fact a “crackpot notion” safe in the knowledge that 99% of their readership will, alas, have no clue and little incentive to find one.
mccode says
Not In My Back Yard, Baby.
Not now, not ever.
Elizabeth Lawson says
Let’s just cut to the chase here on the topic of Muslim acceptability in the Western democracies. They just don’t fit, and they themselves have made this clear. We, the electorate, decide what governments we wish to govern our countries. Those governments that we have chosen, and continue to choose, represent our will. It is emphatically NOT our will to have Islamism elevated to any situation of power or dominance ANYWHERE in our cultural, social or political arenas. What these bearers of this appalling retrograde ideology desire, is utterly incompatible with civilized cultures as we know them. They can continue in their attempt to silence those who quote verses of their book, which clearly emphasize the brutality and horror that they have introduced to many populations over the centuries. They can neither hide, nor deny these realities. Politicians who vainly attempt to make Islamic goals, ideology and conduct palatable, are either congenitally blinded by stupidity, or worse, they are in the pay of the most corrupting force on earth. Supporting this comment is the historic culture ( and the present culture) of Islamic countries. Their populations are captured, unrepresented, governed by brutal madmen, warlike, abusive of all, and particularly women. Education of citizens is frequently substituted by indoctrination. Finally, let me say that Islamic immigrants/refugees ( a tiny fraction are REAL refugees) are running FROM Islamic countries. It it laughable and incomprehensible to the educated mind that ANY mouthpiece of Islam would think his/her quest to replicate this disastrous ideology in the face of such compelling evidence of its disfunction.
Elizabeth Lawson says
Let’s just cut to the chase here on the topic of Muslim acceptability in the Western democracies. They just don’t fit, and they themselves have made this clear. We, the electorate, decide what governments we wish to govern our countries. Those governments that we have chosen, and continue to choose, represent our will. It is emphatically NOT our will to have Islamism elevated to any situation of power or dominance ANYWHERE in our cultural, social or political arenas. What these bearers of this appalling retrograde ideology desire, is utterly incompatible with civilized cultures as we know them. They can continue in their attempt to silence those who quote verses of their book, which clearly emphasize the brutality and horror that they have introduced to many populations over the centuries. They can neither hide, nor deny these realities. Politicians who vainly attempt to make Islamic goals, ideology and conduct palatable, are either congenitally blinded by stupidity, or worse, they are in the pay of the most corrupting force on earth. Supporting this comment is the historic culture ( and the present culture) of Islamic countries. Their populations are captured, unrepresented, governed by brutal madmen, warlike, abusive of all, and particularly women. Education of citizens is frequently substituted by indoctrination. Finally, let me say that Islamic immigrants/refugees ( a tiny fraction are REAL refugees) are running FROM Islamic countries. It it laughable and incomprehensible to the educated mind that ANY mouthpiece of Islam would think his/her quest to replicate this disastrous ideology in the face of such compelling evidence of its disfunction would succeed.
mccode says
Well said.
Even better for being posted twice.
eduardo odraude says
+1, Elizabeth Lawson
Wellington says
Excellent statement, Elizabeth Lawson.
gravenimage says
Yes–fine post, Elizabeth.
Pete says
++2
Well said.
I hate those muzzies
Roland.Tours says
See for a local perspective: https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/the_untold_side_of_the_bernards_mosque_story_di_io.html
eduardo odraude says
If there is any ingredient of opposition to Islam in the situation, the opposition is not to Islam as a religion, but to the political totalitarian core of Islamic religion.
People should not deny the religious aspect of Islam, to do so is a fool’s errand, because our society rejects any official definition of religion (see the First Amendment). So insisting that Islam is not a religion and not entitled to First Amendment protection is a total waste of time.
Instead, opposition to Islam should be based on the fact that part of the very core of the religion is political totalitarianism that is no dead letter but a current global threat supported by hundreds of millions of people and millions of terrorists. People should be open about rejecting Islam based on the political core aspect of it. The existence of the threat should be backed up by
1) empirical data on the human rights situation in Muslim majority nations, as researched by human rights groups;
2) polling data that shows high percentages of Muslims around the world (to different degrees) support totalitarian aspects of Islamic law;
3) the core Islamic texts: Qur’an, Hadith, Sira.
The opposition, if it does not want to be overwhelmed and shipwrecked, should not absolutely reject Muslim presence, but rather should call for a “moratorium on further Muslim immigration until such time as a majority of Muslim-majority nations permit freedom of speech and freedom of religion.” Such a moratorium would actually be good not just for non-Muslims seeking to maintain freedom in their own countries, but also for those in the Muslim world who seek real liberty. Muslim nations would for the first time face real concrete pressure to abandon the characteristics that are most heinous and objectionable.
Wellington says
Seconded, though I would note, eduardo, that Western constitutional and legal systems are presently constructed in such a way that the great parasite which is Islam, the great destroyer of liberty which is Islam, is able now to take advantage of enlightened constitutional and legal systems, actually using their very principles of liberty and equality under the law, to insure a foothold in such societies with the intention of eventually changing them beyond all recognition.
This is why I have many times described Islam as not only the oldest totalitarian ideology of all time but also the cleverest and best disguised. Much new legal work needs to be done in order to a) preserve liberty in free societies where Islam has been “introduced”; while at the same time b) taking recognition of Islam as a unique and diabolical destroyer of freedom. The key is to comprehend Islam in its entirety as a negative. Until this occurs, only tactical victories here and there will transpire (if even this). What is needed is a whole new grand strategy and much thinking outside the box. Otherwise, Islam will “win,”
eduardo odraude says
Agreed.
gravenimage says
Good posts, Eduardo and Wellington.
The Greek says
Let me set you straight. islam is not a religion, anyone that calls it such is a FOOL. hint hint. Wake up Eduardo you seem to be a man with a brain that has a small synaptic glitch. Why not say the TRUTH as it is. mohamhead PLAGERISED Christianity and so forth came islam and its stupidity. I gather you understand the meaning of PLAGERISM – to steal and pass off ideas of another as ones own. That is all that needs to be said. Stop putting religion with islam. I takes a MEEK Christian to say it as it is. I gather you do not know what a MEEK Christian is, hint it is not what the libretard dictionary definition is – just to give you a clue. You talk a good game but there is so much you will not say or do correctly and the air needs to be cleared… Remember and never Forget – all muslims are SLAVES all muslims are TERRORISTS, whether it be thru violent or stealth jihad as in Basking Ridge, NJ !!!!!.
Wellington says
Islam is a religion, it’s just that it is an evil religion (hey, as I have rhetorically asked many times before, where is it written that a religion must be good?). I can assure you for purposes related to the American Constitution, Islam definitely qualifies as a religion here in America (so does Satanism and Scientology).
Finally, eduardo is a pretty sharp fellow. I wouldn’t cast aspersions towards him as you did.
The Greek says
Let me take you to task. The libretard dictionary (Websters) Daniel Webster was a smart man but he states there are 4800 or so called religions. That is an all encompassing bunch of baloney. There is only one religion Orthodox Christianity. Anything else that is around “so called ” religions still are and belong to Othodox Christianity since all of us are made in Gods image. Like I stated before islam is not a religion one bit. It is “PLAGERISM” PLAIN AND SIMPLE – let it sink in a bit… I also did not disparage Eduardo I said he was a sharp man just lacking and lagging a bit. Now talking about the Constitution it was meant to practice Orthodox Christianity in a way you were comfortable with. That is what the for fathers meant. Everyone and their mother and you are twisting it for your own convenience – this has brought about a sad state of affairs which the fruits of that stupidity are upon us now. The Puritans and Quakers fought amongst each other sometimes in bloody confronrarions to worship in their own Christian way, that was 240 years before the Constitution and 220 years later because of all the weak kneed sniveling CRINOS – Christian In Name Only and twisted interpertations of the Constitution and the Bible were are left with …
gravenimage says
Good grief–I see we have someone else condemning all Christians save the Greek Orthodox as false Christians.
And no, the Quakers were not slaughtering other people. What a load of claptrap. And the Quakers were founded in 1650–they weren’t around 240 years before the Constitution.
Wellington says
The Greek: There is only one religion, i.e., Orthodox Christianity? So, Hinduism and Judaism are not religions? Roman Catholicism is not? And on and on.
You are a very narrow-minded person but I might add that I have found this to be too often typical of Eastern Orthodox Christians, often as close-minded, God forbid, as are Muslims. So, congratulations or “belonging” to such a select company.
Pathetic.
Nabi says
Oh, but we don’t dare say that our main objection is disgust with revolting aspects of the ideology. What’s to like or approve of? You have to be Muslim or daft leftist.
Gerald Mucci says
As long as Islam is defined by our laws as a “religion”, protected by the first amendment, Mosques and Islamic Centers will be permitted anywhere, just as churches are. The Muslim “lawyering up” was motivated be this fact.
Islam needs to be redefined as a seditious ideology, with its designated meeting places outlawed. Until then, its meeting places are treated the same as churches.
Gerald Mucci says
As long as Islam is defined by our laws as a “religion”, protected by the first amendment, Mosques and Islamic Centers will be permitted anywhere, just as churches are. The Muslim “lawyering up” was motivated by this fact.
Islam needs to be redefined as a seditious ideology, with its designated meeting places outlawed. Until then, its meeting places are treated the same as churches.
Michael Copeland says
The organisation, Islam, which the building serves, has two features which deserve to be stressed:
Islam kills those who leave.
Islam authorises deception.
Both these can be easily verified.
dumbledoresarmy says
Yes. For me, the deal-breaker is the apostasy law.
We have, in Islam, an Organisation whose rulebook states unequivocally that anyone who leaves or is even suspected of *wanting* to leave is to be killed. And there is lots and lots of evidence that this is not a dusty old ‘dead letter’ but a principle alive and active throughout the Ummah or Mohammedan Mob. Samuel Zwemer’s “The Law of Apostasy in Islam” and ex-Muslim Patrick Sookhdeo’s “Freedom to Believe” – and a *mountain* of testimony from those who, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mona Walters, Ibn Warraq and ‘Hannah Shah’, author of “The Imam’s Daughter”, and also Bilquis Sheikh’s “I Dared To Call HIm Father” (i.e. Bilquis Sheikh became a Christian and could therefore address God as ‘father’) – make it very clear that many Muslims agree with killing apostates and will in fact attempt to do so.. **even when living within majority-non-Islamic countries).
There is, too, the ‘blasphemy’ law, modelled on the sunnah of mohammed, who approved of his assassins going out to murder *non-adherents* who had dared to criticise or make fun of himself/ his cronies/ and his bizarre cultus. The murders of Theo Van Gogh and of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, the Danish cartoon riots, the attempted murders of Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks – *all* carried out by Muslims resident within the gates of the West – tell us that this part of the traditional Islamic rulebook is *also* very much alive and present – and is likely to be *acted upon* by an unknowable – but probably larger than many naive fools blithely suppose – proportion of the Muslim ‘community’ resident in our midst.
We CANNOT TELL which Muslims, which persons – holding passports from OIC-member countries and manifestly *not* from the indigenous non-Islamic minorities in those countries – are likely to feel entitled to *attempt to enforce* the apostasy law and/ or the ‘blasphemy’ law, **right here within non-Muslim lands**.
So: we have to ceaselessly pester our politicians – and our foolish and naive religious leaders, far too often! – reminding them of these unpleasant *facts*, and stating that it is on the basis of these FACTS that we desire a complete – and permanent – cessation of all entry of identifiable Muslims into our countries. We have had enough. We have had more than enough. And we just don’t feel like playing even one more round of “Muslim roulette”.
gravenimage says
Fine post, DDA.
Berengaria says
Islam is an Ideology that is very similar to Communism, both grind down the Individual to stress the Importance of their Violent Ideology.
But Evil Islam was imported into our Country by Weak Leadership, Bush/Clinton/Obama, & we US Citizens had no voice in this deadly mistake.
Thank God that President Trump is trying to stem the Invasion, but it’s far too late, the Mosques are spreading into every American Town & Islam now uses our own Laws to rob us of our Country.
Basking Ridge is every City or Town that has tried to fight against the Invasion & the Muslims are usually victorious.
We American Citizens are the Vanquished, from Our Own Country.
Lydia Church says
Basking in evil is all they do.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: The Mosque At Basking Ridge: A Morality Tale? (Part 3)
……………….
Yes, Mosques are surpremacist. Denying this is absurd.
ploome says
and did anyone mention the loud ‘call’ to prayer 5 times a day ?
gravenimage says
Here’s some of the crap from Harun Yahya’s dishonest “Islam Denounces Terrorism:
“When this book was first written in 2002, we explained with evidence that terrorists, and most importantly their leaders, are selfish, cruel and merciless people who, as a result of Darwinist and materialist education they received, see life as a constant struggle where only the fittest survive.”
Never mind that this completely misunderstands the meaning of “fittest”. If this were *really* the case, then most terrorists would be secular Westerners–those most likely to learn about Darwin–instead of almost entirely pious Muslims. Yahya does not, of course, explain why this is the case.
It is also full of predictable swerves like saying that Islam prohibits attacks on innocent people–without noting that no Muslim considers Infidels to be innocent.
It’s also full of misused Qur’anic quotes, such as the obligatory Qur’an 5:32–which is not aimed at Muslims at all, but just at Jews for supposedly not living up to their own ideals.
He also cites verses condemning corruption–without noting that Jihad terror is not considered corruption–but people living free of submission to Islam *is*.
He lies outright about the warlord “Prophet” Muhammed being peaceful.
Unsurprisingly, it is full of false Tu Quoque from distant history about Infidels.
Yahya doesn’t shy away from jaw-dropping lies like this one:
“True Democracy is Only Possible When People Live by Islamic Moral Values”
Never mind that there is not a single Muslim country that is a real democracy–nor that all democracies are Infidel lands. He also makes grotesque claims about Islam–the most inegalitarian of creeds–being all about ‘social justice’. He claims–hilariously–that no Muslim can be antisemitic.
Then he says–biggest lie of all–that there is no killing in the Jihad of the Qur’an. I guess he hopes no one reading his load of Taqiyya was ever read the blood-soaked Qur’an.
He goes on to include several well-known forgeries, like the Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine Monastery.
Finally–and predictably–he blames Jihad on the Infidels, saying that Guantanamo Bay creates “radicalization”. Guess what else fuels “radicalism”? That’s right–“Islmophobia”. In other words, Islamic violence is created by Infidels noticing that Islam is violent–as well as any actions taken to defend against Jihad violence.
This whole load of whitewash and lies is festooned with images of flowers, happy children, and kittens. Just nausea inducing….
Buraq says
What a Mosque actually is:
Muslim migration to Infidel lands is the preliminary form to conquest, following the example of the original Hijra to Medina. The Mosque is at the center, the radiating locus of Islamization. Muhammad said “I command you with these five, which Allah has charged me with: assemble, listen, obey, hijra and jihad.” (Tafseer al Qur’an ibn Kathir)
Muslims are migrating to the West to spread and establish Islam, as they are required to do by doctrine. Individual Muslims may do things for their own reasons but Mosques only represent one thing; Hijra, a prelude to Jihad. That’s why Mosques must not be allowed to proliferate.
Every mosque is modeled on the first Mosque in Medina and hijra is modeled on the first hijra, a jihad to establish Islam and the Islamic State.
The Mosque, which Muhammad built before he even built his own house, was the first seminary and pulpit and where jihad military operations were planned. It was the center of both the Muslim community and of the new Islamic State, from where armies were sent to conquer, from where treaties were made, from where death sentences were issued, from where the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims was first proclaimed. Mosques and Jihad have been synonymous ever since.
The progression from migration to Mosque is doctrinal. Following immigration comes “tamkeen”– consolidation or empowerment. This includes something called “Ta’leef al Qulub” or reconciliation of hearts, making non Muslims think favorably of Islam and Muslims, enabling Muslims to infiltrate their institutions– this includes use of deception, flattery, trickery, concealment; then comes “l’dad” or preparation– multiplying, readying for more aggressive measures. This is doctrine, not something that just happens, and like everything in Islam, is based on the example of Muhammad.
This clown Chaudry is carrying out a well worn strategy to set up a forward base to conquer America!
somehistory says
moslims know…and really like the fact…that the comings and goings and noise at all hours of the day and night, every day of the week.., disturb those who are trying to relax, or sleep, or listen to music, or whatever other things of their lives are happening in their homes.
The creep lied…as they all do…to further the plan to take over the neighborhood. He likely lives in a neighborhood inhabited mainly…or maybe exclusively…by moslims. Why not build the barracks there/
The reason: he wants to take over another area for islam. If the noise and traffic get to be too much for the present residents, some of them will move. And those homes will then be bought up by moslims.
This is the plan. Take over the land, take over the houses, take over the whole neighborhood and the entire country one plot…one lot… at a time.
Politicianophobia says
As I have said many times, if you read the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan: The Brotherhood seeks to implement its vision in stages. Gradual construction of the Muslim individual, Muslim family, Muslim community and finally the Muslim government, and the Islamic state. Slow and steady has always been their plan.
Why has Ahmed Hussen, the Somalian, Immigration Minister of Canada, who calls people un-Canadian for trying to stop the border horse pucky, been meeting with George Soros recently?
Politicianophobia says
“Islam does not sanction the rule of selfish desires.” (That is laughable) “It has come to abolish all such concepts, laws, customs and traditions, and to REPLACE them with a new concept of human life, to create a new world on the foundation of submission to the Creator.”
It IS that simple and the left loons and the press are helping.
granddaddy says
They always hide behind the idea that Islam is a religion. But I don’t know any religion that preaches the things Islam does: hate, war, beheading, slavery, deceit, World domination. All anybody has to do is read the Quran. Nobody in Basking Ridge can read the Quran? Are we going to allow a political ideology hide behind the label of “religion” while it conquers country after country? Is there another religion anything like Islam? Is it “then we’re stupid and we’ll die” time?
Aussie Infidel says
All disputes over mosques eventually come down to local issues such as parking, traffic congestion and noise etc. If anyone raises the real issue – Islam and its aggressive, anti-semitic, criminal ideology – they are dismissed as bigots or Islamophobes. They are seen to be denying the poor victimized Muslims the same rights as everyone else – simply to build a house of worship.
All the issues to do with mosque applications considered by local councils and planning boards, are simply ‘issues of inconvenience’. The real issue, such as the violent political ideology of Islam and its threat to our cultural and national survival, are never dealt with. Opponents of mosques and madrassas will not make progress until they deal with the fundamentals first. As most people at JW know, the covert agenda of Islam is to subjugate all other religions and cultures, and impose its criminal ideology and barbaric Sharia law on everyone throughout the world.
The Islamic scriptures describe the Muslims’ ‘battle plan’ for all who care to read it. But the main problem is that our leaders haven’t read these scriptures, and consequently they are ignorant of the threat we face.
“Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah knows, while you know not.” (Quran 2:216).
“And fight them until there is no fitnah (opposition) and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.” (Quran 8:39).
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth (Islam) from those who were given the Scripture (Jews & Christians) – [fight] until they give the jizyah (protection tax) willingly while they are humbled (as dhimmis or second class citizens).” (Quran 9:29).
“O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.” (Quran 9:123).
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’.” (Bukhari 1:8:387).
In its attempt to ensure freedom of religion, the West has left itself vulnerable to attack by those who seek to destroy it. Having enshrined such freedom in the US Constitution – in the way it is written – makes religion a ‘sacred cow’ and not to be challenged under any circumstances. We will never get anywhere until we break out of this rigid mindset. Firstly, Congress needs to legislate a legal definition of religion – from which Islam would easily be excluded. As an illegal ideology, the Islamic tiger would have it fangs removed – without even having to mention Muhammad or his medieval madness. And secondly, because the Islamic scriptures incite jihadist attacks against non-Muslims, Islam can simply be declared a ‘threat to national security’, and dealt with accordingly.
Legislators need to learn that if they can’t break the brick wall down, they need to find a way around it.