Murfreesboro mosque foes handed loss

But judge will allow opponents to pursue open meetings claims

A judge has ruled that construction of a new mosque in Rutherford County does not harm the residents who sued the county to stop it.

The judge did allow plaintiffs to pursue claims the county violated an open meetings law in approving the site plan for the mosque.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Joe Brandon Jr. had argued that the mosque violated his clients’ constitutional rights, claiming that the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro’s members were compelled by their religion to subdue non-Muslims.

In a ruling issued Tuesday, Chancellor Robert Corlew dismissed most of the complaints raised by the 17 plaintiffs, except for claims that the county violated the state Open Meetings Act by not providing proper notice for the meeting at which the mosque site plan was approved.

The court has not set a date to hear the open meetings complaint.

“Our families and children have gone through a lot,” said the mosque’s spiritual leader, Imam Ossama M. Bahloul.

“I think we can all agree that we should concentrate on common goals, and we’ve tried to be friends with everyone, even with those opposed to the project.

“It’s obvious this Muslim community did not harm anyone.”

Design plans for the mosque are being finalized, and building permits are being sought, Islamic Center spokesman Saleh Sbenaty said.

Plaintiffs might appeal

Brandon said in a statement issued Thursday that his clients are evaluating their options and could file a motion for reconsideration or appeal the judge’s ruling.

But he noted that the case has been cleared for trial on the open meetings claims.

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, which has operated in the county for more than two decades, sought to build a new mosque after outgrowing its building within the city.

The county’s approval of a site plan for a new center just outside city limits brought vocal resistance from opponents and led to a series of rallies and counter-rallies.

Federal agents started an investigation into arson at the construction site after a dump truck was set on fire; vandals have twice defaced a sign announcing the Islamic center is being built there.

Judge: not targets

During testimony in the case last year, Brandon questioned county officials on whether Islam qualified as a religion and presented a theory that American Muslims want to replace the U.S. Constitution with extremist Islamic law.

Corlew said the plaintiffs have to prove an injury different from that suffered by other residents of the county, but denied their claims that their religion made them targets for subjugation under what is known as Shariah law.

He said earlier that the court did not find that Islamic Center of Murfreesboro members adhered to extremist religious ideas.

“While we have previously noted the dangers, inadequacies and inappropriateness of Sharia law, there is inadequate evidence in the record which supports this plaintiff’s contention of a casual connection between the teachings of Sharia law and the actions of the county government,” Corlew wrote.

Corlew said that he respected the opinions of the plaintiffs but that the U.S. Constitution has established the right to freedom of religion and tolerance of differing religious beliefs.

“The fears that the church building may be used as an arsenal for jihad or for some other clandestine purpose, or even for the teaching of Sharia law, is not demonstrated by the record and, at least at this point, remain speculation under the law,” he wrote.

Supporters of the mosque put their faith in the courts, said Sbenaty, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro’s spokesman.

“We always believed in our judicial system,” he said. “I hope we will put this behind us and unite again and work together to bring understanding opposed to suspicion.”

An attorney for the county did not immediately return a call for comment.

See more on this Topic