 Print
Masjid Al Noor: Did We Trade Away a Once-in-a-Generation Community Opportunity?
8-26-2026
To the Editor:
The recent message from Masjid Al Noor, titled “Thank You to Our Community,” celebrates approval of the proposed development as an opportunity to build a stronger community for generations to come.
I respectfully disagree.
This is not a personal attack. It is a challenge to a decision that deserves serious public discussion: Have we protected the community’s long-term interests, or surrendered an opportunity that may never return?
What was the original purpose?
My understanding is that this property was intended for a major mosque and cultural/community centre—not simply a small place of worship surrounded by residential development.
The original vision could have included worship, education, charitable services, youth and family programs, community events, recreation and other facilities serving Surrey for generations.
Instead, the approved development includes approximately 345 residential units alongside a comparatively small mosque.
That raises a fundamental question:
How did a vision centred on a major mosque and cultural centre become a predominantly residential development with a mosque incorporated into it?
A unique opportunity
The value of this property lies not only in the land itself, but also in what its location and planning approvals permit.
Residential development can occur on many properties throughout Surrey. A uniquely situated site capable of becoming a major mosque and cultural centre is far more difficult to replace.
You can build another apartment tower elsewhere. You cannot easily recreate a community site once its original purpose has been surrendered.
If this land can support approximately 345 residential units, we should ask what could have been achieved through a genuine community campus: a large mosque, education facilities, community halls, youth and seniors’ programs, family services, charitable offices, recreation spaces and other institutions serving future generations.
In my view, the mosque and community facilities should have been the principal purpose, with residential development—if necessary to help finance the project—as the supporting component.
A mosque should not become the amenity attached to a residential development. The community institution should be the heart of the development.
Financing, waqf and accountability
I understand that a major mosque and cultural centre would require substantial financing. But financial difficulty should not automatically end a generations-long vision. Alternatives could have included phased construction, community fundraising, endowments, other donors, different development structures or Islamic financing.
The financing method also matters religiously. If conventional interest-bearing borrowing is involved, qualified Islamic scholars should have been consulted, and the community should have been given an opportunity to understand the implications before an irreversible decision was made.
If the land was placed into waqf or entrusted for a specific religious or community purpose, the responsibility is even greater. Waqf is stewardship, not simply ownership. The key question is:
Have we preserved the purpose for which the land was entrusted, or fundamentally changed it?
That deserves an independent and transparent answer.
Long-term control
When a mosque is tied to a large residential project, the community may become dependent on another ownership structure for access, common areas, infrastructure, repairs and future decisions.
Who controls shared spaces? Who pays for major repairs? What happens when residential ownership changes? What protections exist if future owners’ interests conflict with the mosque’s needs?
These may seem like technical questions today, but they could become serious issues decades from now. A community mosque should have the independence and control necessary to serve its religious purpose over the long term.
Questions for the community and the City
Surrey needs housing, but housing can be built in many locations. This property may have offered a rare opportunity for a landmark community institution.
The community therefore deserves clear answers:
-
What was the original purpose and planning objective for this property?
-
What changed during the planning process?
-
Why did the residential component become so substantial?
-
What is the exact size of the mosque and community facilities compared with the residential component?
-
What long-term community benefits are legally secured?
-
What protections ensure that the religious and community facilities remain available to future generations?
-
What alternatives were considered before this development structure was approved?
These are not objections to development. They are questions about whether the development fulfills the property’s original community purpose.
Third reading and planning approval do not require everyone to regard the outcome as beneficial. We can respect the process, acknowledge the work involved in obtaining a mosque, and still ask whether the community is receiving far less than it could have built.
A question of legacy
This is ultimately about stewardship and legacy.
Twenty or thirty years from now, our children may ask:
“You had this opportunity. Why didn’t you build the institution we needed?”
We are temporary custodians of the community’s future. Our responsibility is to think beyond today’s financing challenges and convenience—to the next generation and the generation after that.
I sincerely hope the completed project benefits the community. But a development should not automatically be called a victory simply because it includes a mosque.
The real question is:
Could we have done something much greater?
If so, the community has every right to question what may have been lost. This may have been an opportunity to create a landmark mosque and cultural institution for Surrey. If the final arrangement instead leaves us with a relatively small mosque attached to hundreds of residential units, we must be willing to say:
We may have settled for far less than what this land could have given our community.
We should have been building the foundation for the next hundred years—not merely solving the financing problem of the next few years.
That is why this decision deserves transparency, open discussion and accountability to the community whose future this land was meant to serve.
Once the concrete is poured and the towers are built, we cannot turn the clock back.
Hafiz Mohammed
Surrey, BC
Footnotes:
|