Tensions simmer over Islamic Center plans in Teaneck

A Muslim group applies to open an Islamic center. Residents pack meetings to oppose the plan, expressing outrage over traffic and parking. The applicant faces delays and denials, then sues alleging discrimination.

The scenario has played out in towns and cities across America, including Basking Ridge, Vineland, Bayonne and Bridgewater. As Muslim communities grow, they seek new places for the faithful to gather for prayer, learning and recreation, but face resistance from residents and from boards that must give stamps of approval.

In Teaneck, a group trying to establish a community center and place of worship has alleged they, too, are being blocked due to discrimination. The Al Ummah Community Center, which sued the town and its zoning board in 2020, said they faced burdensome and costly requirements not asked of other applicants.

Now, backers of the community center say that a board member's alleged anti-Muslim comments — revealed in testimony in discovery before Judge Kevin McNulty in U.S District Court in New Jersey— support their claims of discrimination.

Teaneck has denied allegations of discrimination in court filings and said the project review was fair, legal and necessary. The township also maintains the group applied to establish a community center, not a house of worship. But Al Ummah's backers said they have sought a center for religious services as well as a place for religious instruction, exercise and social activities.

Bias allegations

The Al Ummah Community Center bought the former Longfellow School on Oakdene Avenue, which most recently was used as a church with day care, for $4.3 million in 2018. They had plans to establish a community center with facilities for recreation, child care, education and prayer.

In June, zoning board member Atif Rehman was questioned about the case in court. He testified that, during a zoning board discussion about vehicular pickups, board member Ed Mulligan “muttered” a comment about pickup by camel — a reference historically used in a demeaning way against Arabs.

Al Ummah’s on-site child care was also a topic of testimony. “I made a point and I said, it's already approved for the school, like it's already approved for the day care. And [Mulligan] said that was a scam. Would you trust these people with your children?” Rehman recalled in the testimony.

Mohamad Salem, an Al Ummah board member, said the comments supported his suspicions of bias. He added, "Throughout this entire case, they were dragging their feet. We felt we were never going to get approval."

In a court brief, attorneys wrote that the claims were “an attempt to contrive a false narrative against all the zoning board members who never made a racist and/or xenophobic comment directed at the plaintiffs’ or any member of the Muslim community at any time.”

Attorneys for the township and zoning board declined to comment.

More:Teaneck NJ: Fast facts on the Bergen County township

More:With mass shootings in mind, Passaic sheriff gives clergy tips to protect sacred spaces

More:One of the largest Halal slaughterhouses in the US is in Paterson, NJ

Mosques and the law

Al Ummah sued in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, claiming violations of state and federal law, including the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Since 2000, the federal act has protected churches, mosques and synagogues from unequal treatment and from “substantial burden” on religious practice.

Citing the federal law, those seeking mosques in Basking Ridge, Bayonne, Vineland and Bridgewater sued and reached settlements allowing their mosques to be built. They claimed efforts to stop their construction or expansion were masked as zoning issues.

"When there is actual discrimination, that is a First Amendment violation," said Marci Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a religious land use expert. "Even if you have no discrimination of any kind, RLUIP opens the door to overcoming zoning and land use requirements."

“What they can’t do is privilege a religious group over other religious groups. If, say a religious group walked in and they let them do what they want, they have to provide the same extensive accommodation to next religious group,” Hamilton said.

Al Ummah has maintained that the center was treated in a harsher manner compared to other schools, community centers or faith-based organizations that were applicants to the board. Aymen Aboushi, attorney for Al Ummah, said they faced costly delays while larger projects got quicker approvals and that they had to redo plans for minor changes like restriping a parking lot. They also had to respond to repeat and off-topic questions from crowds, including about any Islamic curriculum that might be used and how often they pray, stretching the time spent at meetings, he said.

Teaneck has replied in court documents that officials did an objective and thorough review that included questions about traffic flow and access for emergency access and “did not delay nor dismiss plaintiffs’ application unlawfully.”

Religious or not?

In another point of debate, Teaneck claimed that the applicants did not identify themselves as a religious organization, institution or assembly, as they applied for a community center with an interfaith prayer space.

Al Ummah said Teaneck officials knew they intended to open a house of worship, and advised them to downplay religious aspects of their plan, including minimizing prayer space and using the acronym AUCC as the project name.

Selaedin Maksut, executive director of the New Jersey chapter Council on American-Islamic Relations, who has advocated for Al Ummah, balked at the reply.

“I don’t know how that would change anything," he said. "It’s still a house of worship, Muslim-run and Muslim-owned ... All Americans have the freedom to establish houses of worship and community centers without unfair impediment."

This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Teaneck NJ Islamic center says bias claims supported in suit