Muslim Leaders Developing Texas Community Report Facing ‘Islamophobic’ Backlash

Image: Jihad Watch

For several months now, heated controversy has surrounded one of Texas’s largest mosques, the East Plano Islamic Center, and its ambitious plan to build a vast community in the Dallas area. The proposed development is no small undertaking—it envisions the construction of a mosque along with nearly 1,000 homes, effectively creating an enclave that would stand apart from the broader Dallas community.

The Houston Chronicle, in a recent report, expressed outrage over the backlash, attributing it to what it described as “conservative Christian politicians” who, according to the paper, have been circulating “unfounded claims on social media.” Muslim leaders tied to the project insist that they have increasingly become the target of what they describe as Islamophobic threats and attacks, portraying themselves as victims of religious hostility.

Yet critics argue that the opposition might never have reached this fever pitch had the project’s leadership been more transparent about their goals, and had they not leaned so quickly on the familiar political tactic of claiming victimhood at the first sign of resistance. The Chronicle dismissed the concerns raised by critics as exaggerated or even absurd—such as allegations that the development is designed to exclude Christians and Jews, or that it is intended to foster a Muslim-only community governed by Islamic law (Sharia). The newspaper treated such suspicions as self-evidently ridiculous. But are they truly so implausible?

Central to this discussion is Yasir Qadhi, the resident scholar of the East Plano Islamic Center and a prominent imam originally from Houston. Qadhi is no stranger to controversy. In March 2011, he authored a defense of Sharia that was ostensibly aimed at calming non-Muslim fears but ultimately had the opposite effect. Instead of clarity, many saw in his essay a carefully worded attempt to downplay the true implications of Islamic law—an exercise in selective phrasing and calculated ambiguity.

Qadhi began by misrepresenting the concerns of Sharia’s critics. He cited a bill that defined Sharia as “a system of legal, political, military, and religious laws that calls its followers to overthrow the United States government through brutal force, acts of terrorism, and ‘holy war’ (i.e., jihad), in order to establish itself as the sole political and religious power in the world.” He then dismissed this definition as a caricature, declaring that if Sharia were indeed what the bill described, he himself would be among the first to support banning it. On the surface, his words sounded patriotic, even reassuring.

But upon closer inspection, critics contend that his argument was little more than a sleight of hand. While Sharia does not always mandate violent overthrow, it undeniably seeks to establish itself as the dominant religious and political framework, as evidenced in the Qur’anic directive for Muslims to continue striving “until religion is all for Allah” (8:39). In other words, Qadhi sidestepped the essence of the concern by attacking a straw man version of the argument—framing the objections in extreme terms so that he could easily dismiss them, without ever confronting the deeper issues head-on.

Thus, when residents and political figures voice apprehension that the East Plano project could pave the way for an insular, Sharia-influenced enclave, their fears cannot be brushed aside as mere hysteria. They emerge from long-standing debates about transparency, intent, and the ideological leanings of those at the center of the project.

(This Article was originally published by Jihad Watch)