Tenn. mosque won't be ready for Ramadan's start

In a Thursday, June 21, 2012 file photo, a worker walks out of the construction site of a mosque being built in Murfreesboro, Tenn. / AP Photo/Erik Schelzig, File

(AP) MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - Tennessee Muslims who won a court battle to occupy their new mosque learned Thursday they won't be able to begin worshipping there for the start of Ramadan because it needs about two weeks more of construction work.

Still, members of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro were celebrating their legal victory after being buffeted for two years by a lawsuit in which they had no say.

"I think it was a very good day yesterday, and thank God!" mosque Board Chairman Essam Fathy said. "It surprised all of us. It was an unexpected joy!"

Construction supervisor David Salimi said a codes inspector visited the site on Thursday morning, but that it would take about two more weeks of work to be ready. That includes connecting the water and power.

Mosque opponents sued Rutherford County in September 2010 to stop construction of the new building. Their suit included claims that Islam is not a real religion and that local Muslims wanted to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and replace it with Islamic religious law.

Video: Tennessee mosque controversy
Web Extra: Mosque Backlash Surprising
Tenn. Mosque Foes: Islam Militant, Not Religion

Mosque member Kimberly Abu-Shanab, who was raised as a Christian but converted to Islam many years ago, said the hostility she has seen recently toward her religion had her "dumbfounded."

"I really had that idea in the back of my mind like they could start rounding people up," she said. " ... The ruling about the mosque is just wonderful."

Another member, Tahira Ahad, said she was never discouraged by the setbacks.

"I always knew it would turn out well for us because I believe in a higher power," she said. "God — He chose us to get this job done."

Eric Rassbach, an attorney for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which now represents the Islamic center, said the case was unusual because normally opponents of a new religious building will express concerns about noise and congestion, even if that is not their real concern.

"The remarkable thing about this case it the fact that people are so open about their anti-Muslim hostility," he said.

Attorneys for the mosque opponents did not return calls seeking comment.

While the claims about Islam were eventually thrown out, the opponents still won their case when the judge ruled the county had not provided sufficient public notice of the meeting where the mosque's construction plans were approved. He ordered the county not to issue an occupancy permit.

On Wednesday, both the mosque and federal prosecutors sued. In an emergency hearing, U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell found the denial violated constitutional right of mosque members to the free exercise of their religion. He ordered the county to proceed with inspections and permitting.

Fathy, who is in charge of the mosque's construction committee, said everyone in the congregation is asking him how soon they would be in the new building.

He expects it will be well before the end of Ramadan, when Muslims celebrate Eid al-Fitr in mid-August,

Fathy said he was very happy that federal prosecutors stepped in to defend their rights.

"The good thing is that the U.S. Attorney said, `We represent the U.S. and our job is to make sure everyone is treated equally, that their constitutional rights are preserved.' It's good to know somebody is watching."

[voteoutobama2012]

Not in a pig's heart beat.

[rrnc5lmce]

Freedom of religion, to me, means free to practice your religion in this country. But, considering what has been happening in the world, I can't help having second thoughts as to their real intentions in this country. it has been proven that mosques are the birthplace of radicalism in that religion. If they will just simply practice their religion and not to try to conduct any monkey business inside their mosque and live like peaceful Americans, it's fine by me...

[krotec54]

The Freedom of Religion means to me to freely move among the states and its religions in this country. It was never meant for anyone to bring in another established religion into this country. All other religions outside the Bible did not have anything to do with our Constitution; all other religions that migrate to this country are required to respect this country's religion and its customs to become an American citizen. The most of the Moslem slaves in the colonies converted to the religion of the state, they had no desire to have a mosque until the 1930, then a few immigrants from Pakistan misinterprets our Constitution, then disrespected the locals and convince them that they were peaceful. But were allowed, as to try to keep the tranquility in the community.

[credibility2]

...this story doesn't specify the conditions of the lawsuit and therefore we don't have all of the information...

[tvwatcher5345]

hey we allow mormon temples and roman catholic churches to be built in this country

[krotec54]

Hey, will they allow Mormon temples and Roman Catholic churches to be built in an Islamic country without it being burnt to the ground?

[AOCGUY]

krotec, what the heck does that have to do with what we do in this country? This is a place of worship for Americans living in America. What other countries do to their citizens does not nor should it influence howwe trate our citizens.

[nohater]

the constitution grants freedom of religion. there is nothing to stop anyone from starting a religion, their own religion, based on whatever doctrine they choose or decide to construct, invent. imagine it can be quite profitable as all is tax free. as for muslims, they are here to stay and growing in numbers. isn't islam the fastest growing religion in the world? if true, then what's to be done about it if anything. in the USA, it's freedom of religion.

[credibility2]

...except when it comes to mandated healthcare reform provisions which are in conflict with teachings...freedom of anything is never free...there is always a cost associated with it...tangibly or not...

[krotec54]

Look at the Constitution; Islam is not listed as a Religion. No cleric signed the Constitution, no state. No Moslem wanted to be in America in the 1700, After 1965 Immigration Act Allowed Asians to migrate to America, to assimilate and convert to be come an American citizen, not to trans plant another country or religion to America.

[Jaylah54200]

I wonder how the bigots would have felt if the Muslims in the community had stopped the building of a "Christian" church in time for Christmas.

[krotec54]

The Christians were here first, they were one of the many Religions in the Thirteen Colonies, and Islam is not a Religion of Freedom in America.

[ultraskygod]

Actually, Kotex, the natives were here first

[CuriousServant]

I'm reading Thomas Jefferson's autobiography. HEre is an excerpt from that autobiography that illustrates the point of this story:

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination..."

[Well_You_Aint_Me]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Article 11, U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, 1796 - 1797

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

[krotec54]

The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,' does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic]. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.