Investigators are still following the spider’s web of contacts and information, regarding the massacre in San Bernadino, California, perpetrated by Radical Islamists.

The trail has now led them to the local mosque.

The New York Post reports that

The cleric acting as spokesman for the San Bernardino mosque where terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook worshipped claims he barely knew Farook and didn’t know his terrorist wife at all. But phone records and other evidence uncovered by federal investigators cast suspicion on his story.

The FBI has questioned the cleric, Roshan Zamir Abbassi, about his phone communications with Farook — including a flurry of at least 38 messages over a two-week span in June, coinciding with the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on two military sites in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Abbassi, a Pakistani, insists he had nothing to do with the shooting at a San Bernardino County government building five miles from the mosque. While he confirms the text messages with Farook, he claims they were merely discussing food donations for his Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamiya of America mosque.

Abbassi maintained at a press conference that he didn’t know Farook any better than he knew the reporters in the room. But members of the mosque say Farook was a fixture there. He had been coming to pray and study at least three times a week for two years. In fact, he memorized the Koran at there, something you cannot do without learning Arabic, a subject Abbassi teaches.

Abbassi maintained at a press conference that he didn’t know Farook any better than he knew the reporters in the room. But members of the mosque say Farook was a fixture there. He had been coming to pray and study at least three times a week for two years. In fact, he memorized the Koran at there, something you cannot do without learning Arabic, a subject Abbassi teaches.

His other assertion that he never even saw Farook’s wife, Tashfeen Malik, also strains credulity. Malik joined her husband in shooting 35 of his government co-workers at a Christmas party.

“No one knows anything about his wife,” assistant imam Mahmood Nadvi agreed. “She never came to prayer.”

But longtime mosque member Gasser Shehata, who claimed to have prayed “shoulder to shoulder” with Farook, said Dar-al-Uloom prepared a chicken-and-rice dinner to celebrate the couple’s wedding last year. Reportedly, hundreds of congregants attended the walima reception, including the mosque leadership.

Asked if Farook was radicalized at the mosque, Abbassi snapped, “Never.” He said the mosque teaches only peace, insisting no one has even an “extremist idea.”

“In Islam,” he said, “we are against innocent killing.”

Abbassi recently posted a message on Facebook condemning the United States and other Western nations for their Mideast policies, arguing they are equally guilty of violence to achieve political and religious goals. His mosque’s Web page features a video claiming that the San Bernardino shooting was carried out by the US government in a “false flag conspiracy,” and that Farook and Malik were “patsies” assassinated “by government-sponsored perpetrators.”

Another person of interest is Abbassi’s brother, Mohammad Sabir Abbassi, a Muslim activist who serves as a trustee and English teacher at the San Diego mosque once headed by the late al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

FBI Agent Joel Anderson said in court filings that Farook indicated he was a big fan of Awlaki and listened to a series of sermons about jihad and martyrdom called “The Hereafter.”

In his filing, Anderson says Farook studied the ultra-orthodox Islamic sect Tablighi Jamaat. US officials say the cult, with 50,000 members, is rife with jihadists, and jihadi groomers are recruiting at mosques in at least 10 states.

“We have significant presence of Tablighi Jamaat in the United States,” said Assistant FBI Director Michael Heimbach, “and we have found that al Qaeda used them for recruiting.”

Homeland Security Department veteran Philip Haney said Dar-al-Uloom was among the mosques his agency was investigating as part of a probe of the Tablighi movement.

“Individuals who were already in the case in 2012 went to that mosque,” Haney claimed in a Fox News interview.

He said he ID’d some 300 jihadists and terrorists tied to the movement in the United States before the Obama regime pulled the plug on the investigation in 2012. Known Tablighi alumni include the Lackwanna Six, the American Taliban John Walker Lindh, shoe bomber Richard Reid, dirty bomber José Padilla and would-be Brooklyn Bridge bomber Iyman Faris.

“We have nothing to hide,” Roshan Abbassi asserted.

Investigators shouldn’t take his word for it.

So, given this, should American Mosques be monitored for Terrorist Activity?

One Congressman made an excellent case for it, yesterday.

CNSNews.com reports that

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Sunday mosques in the United States should be placed under surveillance regardless of the complaints of civil libertarians since “the fact is, that’s where the threat is coming from.”Fox News Sunday stand-in host Doug McKelway asked the chairman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on counterintelligence and terrorism about recent comments in favor of 24/7 monitoring of mosques.

“I can hear the cries of civil libertarians and constitutionalists right now, Congressman,” McKelway said.

“Yeah, listen, they can cry all they want,” King replied. “The fact is, that’s where the threat is coming from.  And we can say that 98, 99 percent of the Muslims in this country are good people. (I’m actually swearing in the first elected Muslim on Long Island into office, she’s a good friend of mine.)

“So, this is nothing against Muslims, but the fact is that is where the threat is coming from,” he continued. “And we’re kidding ourselves. We have this blind political correctness which makes no sense.

King offered several examples of cases where radical sentiment aired in U.S. mosques had allegedly not been reported to law enforcement agencies.

One of the two Boston Marathon bombers (Tamerlan Tsarnaev) had been asked to leave a mosque because of radical statements, he recalled, “but nobody in the mosque ever told the police, nobody ever told the FBI.”

King said there were incidents in his Long Island congressional district in which “we’ve had people in mosques who have spoken radically, who spoke of their intentions to be involved in jihad [and fight with al-Qaeda].

“It was never told to the police, never told to the police at all,” he said. “And when you talk to police off the record, they will tell you that they get very little cooperation from within the leaders of the Muslim community.”

Asked whether law enforcement agencies were being restricted in their ability to monitor mosques, King said Justice Department guidelines present difficulties.

“Local police, and again in New York, the NYPD, they do a phenomenal job,” he said. “The Civil Liberties Union, the New York Times have tried to cut back on that.  Mayor [Bill] de Blasio I think made too many concessions.”

“They’re still doing a great job – don’t get me wrong. But they are doing it in spite of a lot of the restraints that he’s sort of tried to put on them. But as far as the Feds, they are very limited. They basically cannot be infiltrating mosques. I think that has to be done.”

Longstanding calls for the monitoring of mosques in the U.S. grew louder following the Dec. 2 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., the deadliest such attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

After President Obama delivered a prime-time Oval Office address four days later, King tweeted his disapproval: “Not one proposal would have prevented California attacks. Nothing about need for increased surveillance of Muslim community. Pitiful.”

During a Republican presidential debate the following week, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said the argument that monitoring mosque sermons would violate U.S. Muslims’ First Amendment rights was “utter nonsense.”

“If Islam is as wonderful and peaceful as its adherents say, shouldn’t they be begging us to all come in and listen to these peaceful sermons?” Huckabee asked.

“If there’s something so secretive going on in there that somebody isn’t allowed to go and hear it, maybe we do need for sure to send somebody in there and gather the intelligence,” he said.

Gosh. I have no idea how Americans could have ever associated Islam with Radical Islamic Terrorism.

After all, those were Southern Baptists who killed over 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, weren’t they?

What does the Islamic Book of Faith, the Koran (Quran) say about “killing in the Name of the Prophet (Mohammed)”?

• Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
• Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
• Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-”  This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes.  It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle.  Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption.  (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
• Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…”  Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
• Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
• Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”  No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

While I have met some very nice American Muslims, I have also been inside a mosque where I was looked at as if they wanted to take a scimitar to my neck.

If Moderate Muslims are not behind their radical brethren’s eternal jihad against us infidels, they need to get their mugs in front of the cable news networks’ TV cameras and say so…because all I see representing them when I turn on the news, are the abrasive members of CAIR, blaming America for all the world’s troubles.

Secondly, why are American liberals so naively defending these barbarians?

Are they so contrary, as to not realize that Radical Islam punishes every single social issue that American Liberals so “righteously” defend in this nation?

The maddening thing is that every time you challenge liberals on this fact, they try to equate radical Islam with American Christianity.

Frankly, the ignorance of these young Liberals blows my mind.

Recently, I have heard and read from some of this “Me, First Generation” that there is not any difference between American Christianity and Radical Islam. Quite frankly, that’s like saying that there’s no difference between an in-ground swimming pool and a garden hose.

In Islam, the way to “walk with God and escape his judgement on that final day of judgment” is through ‘falah’, which means self-effort or positive achievement. The faithful must submit to God and follow all of his laws as found in the Koran. Judgment day in Islam involves some sort of measurement of what the believer has done wrong and what they have done right. And, even then, you might not be let into heaven if Allah decides you’re not good enough.

This is the direct opposite of Christianity.

According to the Bible, no man can ever be good enough to deserve God’s favor, to win God’s heaven, because from birth we have Free Will. This Free Will may cause us to reject God and live our lives our own way. That’s why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to die for our sins, covering us in His blood of the New Covenant.

God’s Word tells us that what we need is not ‘falah,’ but faith. To have faith in, to trust, to rely on Jesus and his death as “the expiation for our sins”. Those who have been Saved by Jesus Christ can be sure that in the future God will welcome them into heaven with wide open arms, because they have been washed by His blood.

What is lacking today in the Halls of Power is the Spiritual Gift of “Discernment”.

The safety of American Citizens should be the priority of our Political Leaders.

As Dr. Richard D. Land, noted Theologian and Executive Editor of The Christian Post, remarked in a recent op ed,

It should be remembered that being “compassionate” includes being compassionate to all concerned, both those who are here in the U.S. as well as those who want to come. Being compassionate does not require, or even allow us, to voluntarily expose our neighbors’ jugular veins to those who would do them harm without our neighbors’ prior expressed permission.

Until He Comes,

KJ