Paying the Jizya: Small New Jersey town forced to pay $7.75 million to Muslims in mega-mosque move

ByPamela Geller on December 5, 2014
1 Comments

A proposed mega-mosque in a pretty little town in New Jersey was rejected by the town council last year, “citing an ordinance that limited houses of worship to major roads.” Reasonable enough. Municipal officials argued that the purpose of the ordinance was to “preserve the residential character of its various neighborhoods.”

But Islamic supremacists and Muslim Brotherhood organizations like CAIR called upon their lapdogs at the Department of Justice, who sued the small town of Bridgewater. The DoJ has become the de facto legal arm of terror-tied Muslim Brotherhood groups in this country. What small time town can go up against the US government’s vast resources and endless taxpayer-funded muscle?

This New Jersey town was forced to pay Muslims $7.75 million to keep them from building a mega-mosque there.

$7.75 million in Islamic blackmail. Jizya. But they beat the mosquestrosity. Cheap at the price.

In a striking violation of the establishment clause, Obama’s lawless administration is imposing the sharia nationwide, allowing the rampant construction of rabats and jihad recruitment centers at a time when we should be monitoring the mosques and restricting construction of  Muslim Brotherhood beachheads and Islamic State madrassas.

Many churches and synagogues and Wal-Marts and what have you have been unable to build because of zoning laws. So why is Muslim supremacism enshrined in DOJ policy? And why are they given special rights? The United States of America is based on individual rights — no special rights for special classes.

These proposed  giant mosques in small residential neighborhoods with even smaller Muslim populations are “rabats,” a beachhead to spread Islam. The first rabat appeared at the time of Muhammad.

The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat—or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias [raids].

We have seen these giant mosques go up in small neighborhoods (despite local ordinances), establishing beachheads and turning the neighborhood on its head. Streets turned into parking lots — noxious calls to prayer.

Enforcement of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) should not interfere with the County’s standard regulations and procedures.

Millions of Muslims come to Western countries with a ready-made model of society and government, and establish parallel societies based on Islamic law. Back in 1999, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) provided enhanced religious liberty protections in two specific situations: the use of land for religious purposes and religious liberty claims by prisoners passed. RLUIPA gives churches and other religious institutions “a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use.” Ironically, it was legislation largely backed by Republicans, and was meant to scale back on the enormous implications of previous legislation passed under “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” during the Clinton administration. Like most legislation the government passes, the law of unintended consequences comes back to haunt us in spades. The original intent behind the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” while applied to all religions,  was  “most pertinent to Native American religions that are burdened by increasing expansion of government projects onto sacred land. In Native American religion the land they worship on is very important. Often the particular ceremonies can only take place in certain locations because these locations have special significance.”

By introducing this religious accommodation into law, the Republicans paved the way for the Islamic supremacists to destroy our freedoms and individual rights. The genie is out of the bottle, but RLUIPA ought to be repealed.

In passing these sweeping laws there was concern that  “while intended to safeguard the core constitutional principle of religious liberty, could undermine another fundamental constitutional concern, that of ensuring equal protection under the law.” Well, it has and it did.  Religious liberty for all? What if a religion is supremacist and steamrolls over the rights of non-believers, oppresses women, calls for the annihilation of Christians and Jews?

The movement should be led by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), who introduced the bill in the Senate as S.2869 on July 13, 2000.

$7.7 million in Islamic blackmail. Financial jihad.

crwods mosqueLarge crowds opposed to the mosque turned out for every meeting (thanks to BNI)

Bridgewater mosque will be built, as township settles suit for $7.75 million

Louis C. Hochman | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

BRIDGEWATER — The Al Falah Center has agreed not to build a mosque on Mountaintop Road — and will instead build one on a $2.75 million 15-acre lot the township will buy for it under the terms of a settlement, MyCentralJersey.com reports.

The township’s insurance carrier will also pay the center $5 million for alleged damages, costs and attorney fees to end the years-long lawsuit, according to the report. The township will be given the Mountaintop Road property in exchange for the 15-acre site between Routes 202-206 and Route 287 it will purchase for the mosque.

According to the report, the settlement was approved Monday by the township council, ending a federal court fight that has cost the township hundreds of thousands of dollars n legal fees so far.

The township planning board dismissed the mosque proposal in 2011, citing an ordinance that limited houses of worship to major roads. Township officials said they didn’t mind the mosque — only its proposed location.

But a decision by U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp last year, overruling the application of the ordinance, said after the center applied to build a mosque at the former Redwood Inn site, the project faced “anti-Muslim prejudice within the community, including Internet postings and e-mail correspondence.” In one instance, center members were accused of being terrorists, the decision states.

Municipal officials argued that the purpose of the ordinance was to “preserve the residential character of its various neighborhoods,” last year’s decision states. But the judge found the township had “rendered it nearly impossible for Al Falah and its individual members to adhere to the tenets of their religion.” The judge sent the matter back to the planning board for further review, which has continued up until the settlement.

Stay on top of what's really happening. Follow me on Twitter here. Like me on Facebook here.

Print This Post Print This Post

Disclamer

Comments at Atlas Shrugs are unmoderated. Posts using foul language, as well as abusive, hateful, libelous and genocidal posts, will be deleted if seen. However, if a comment remains on the site, it in no way constitutes an endorsement by Pamela Geller of the sentiments contained therein.

  • Fremont V. Brown III

    Publius Huldah Explains Why Islamists Don’t Have the Right to Build Mosques, Proselytize Or Institute Sharia Law In America http://tarheelteaparty.org/?p=826