A theological debate

IN NOVEMBER 2009 the Islamic Centre of Murfreesboro bought a parcel of land on which it planned to build a new mosque and community centre. The congregation had outgrown its current space in a small office building behind a surveying company and a car mechanic; on Fridays congregants pray outside on the pavement, and during holidays they have to rent a space elsewhere to fit everyone in.

In January “NOT WELCOME” was spray-painted on a sign placed on the site announcing it as the future home of the Islamic Centre of Murfreesboro. The sign was vandalised again in June, one week after a contentious county commission hearing at which a local pastor declared, “We have a duty to investigate anyone under the banner of Islam.” The same month a Republican candidate for Congress from Murfreesboro declared herself “opposed to the idea of an Islamic training centre being built in our community”. In August construction equipment at the site was set alight.

So perhaps it should not have come as a surprise that three Rutherford County residents filed a lawsuit in September to block construction of the mosque. The plaintiffs believe that they “have been and will be irreparably harmed by the risk of terrorism generated by proselytising for Islam and inciting the practices of sharia law,” which, they claim, “advocates sexual abuse of children, beating and physical abuse of women, death edicts, honour killings, killing of homosexuals, outright lies to Kafirs (those who don't submit to sharia law), Constitution-free zones, and total world dominion.” Of course, Murfreesboro has had a mosque for decades, and does not seem infested with “Constitution-free zones”; quite how moving to a bigger building in a different location intensifies the risk remains unclear.

Equally unclear is why the chancellor who presided over the hearing permitted such wide-ranging testimony. The defence called a single witness, who testified that the county's planning commission followed proper procedure; the plaintiffs called at least 17, including Frank Gaffney, who runs a think-tank in Washington, DC, and speaks often about the dangers of sharia (for whatever that is worth: on the stand he admitted, “I am not an expert on sharia, but I have talked a lot about it as a threat”). Their attorney's questioning often focused not on the details of open-meetings laws but on the incompatibility of sharia and American law, on whether Islam is a religion (the federal government filed a brief saying that it is) and on whether advocating sharia law ought to be protected by the first amendment.

That difference persisted during closing arguments on Wednesday. The county's summation focused on procedural issues, and complained that “the whole point [of the plaintiffs' strategy] was to try to create a show.” Tom Smith, one of the plaintiff's attorneys, insisted that Muslims are welcome in America as long as they come “not in the shadows of sharia, but in the light of freedom.” He wondered whether there is “a shadow of sharia in our meetings in Rutherford County.” The judge ruled against the plaintiffs, but the row is far from over; Mr Smith warned that the “extraordinary public outcry” is likely to continue if the building is not stopped. His colleague, Joe Brandon, has said that he expects this case will go to the Supreme Court. And just because a building might not be built doesn't mean the people who might worship there will disappear.