Suspicious Fire Damages Tennessee Mosque Construction Site

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - A spokesman for federal arson investigators said Sunday a fire that damaged construction equipment at the site of an Islamic center in suburban Nashville remained under investigation.

Related

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesman Eric Kehn said his department was working with the FBI and the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office to determine what happened at the site early Saturday morning.

"At this point, it's still an onging investigation," Kehn said. He declined to characterize the fire, which a spokeswoman for the center said appeared to have been set by someone who doused construction equipment with gasoline then set at least one truck ablaze.

Camie Ayash told the Daily News Journal the fire has frightened Muslims, who have been part of the community for decades.

"Everyone in our community no longer feels safe," Ayash said. "To set a fire that could have blown up equipment and, God forbid, spread and caused damage to the neighbors there ... When (officials) called me this morning, I started crying."

A sign marking the site of the future Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been vandalized twice in the past several months. But Ayash said the fire "takes it to a whole new level."

The incident marks the latest twist in an increasingly volatile debate surrounding the efforts of the local Muslim community to build a much larger house of worship. The proposed center on 15 acres would include a mosque, a multi-purpose facility, sports facilities, a pavilion and a cemetery, and serve approximately 250 families.

Digging had begun at the site, located directly beside a Baptist church.

Some opposition has come from those expressing concerns about infrastructure impact and traffic, but much has also come from from those implying the mosque would be a haven for terrorists.

Ayash said Islamic Center officials were contacted by the sheriff's department around 1:30 a.m. Saturday.

She said it appeared gasoline had been poured on several pieces of equipment at the site and one vehicle was lit on fire.

"I think they lifted the hood and poured gas into the hood and set it on fire," Ayash said. "The other equipment had gasoline poured on it but was not set on fire."

Authorities working the scene did not specify whether gasoline or some other accelerant was used to start the fire that gutted the engine area of an earth hauler.

Islamic Center officials contacted the FBI and Department of Homeland Security on Saturday, according to Ayash, and sheriff's investigators "told us they will be investigating this as a hate crime."

Ayash later said sheriff's officials "asked her to correct her statement," adding they plan to explore several different motives while investigating the apparent arson.

Rutherford County resident Kevin Fisher, who has led protest efforts against the mosque on the grounds of infrastructure concerns and a lack of transparency in the county's planning approval process, issued a statement Saturday.

"We in this community believe strongly in the rule of law, and choose to settle our disagreements through peaceful deliberations and discussion, not vigilantism. ... We who stand in opposition to this mosque have made our concerns known through proper legal channels and have conducted ourselves with dignity, respect and out of a spirit of love for our community, and we will continue to do so."

___

Information from: The Daily News Journal, http://www.dnj.com

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on September 2, 2010 at 11:16pm

John, puhleeeeze.

"Because one can allude to instilling fear or threaten others whereas the others don't."

You include the weasel word "can" in that statement, which indicates that you aren't able to even really define if a supposed hate crime is really a hate crime or not???

A "weasel word" (noun) is "n. "An equivocal word used to deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment." Not exactly a ringing endorsement for your own opinion there, dude.

Even if you could drop the weasel word (which you can't, if you want to really be accurate) your idea that a crime that has the same result due to an (alleged) intent to threaten or intimidate is worse than an identical crime with identical results that had a profit motive or some other criminal motivation just doesn't make sense. After all, the results were the same.

If the victim was one of my family, I'd be a lot more concerned about the actual result of the crime, particularly where arson is concerned.

Artificial distinctions about motives don't make the criminal justice system any better - they just confuse things. And hate crime legislation is a VERY artificial distinction.

A murder committed to cover up a rape, intimidate a civil rights worker, to silence a witness in a criminal trial, or in a for profit hit all have the same result. According to you, it's worse to kills someone because you don't like them based on some characteristic.

That's really insensitive to the families of those who have been killed to cover up rapes, silence witnesses against criminal defendants, or simply to make money for a hit man. It also goes against any rational sense of fairness.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on September 2, 2010 at 11:17pm

OK, John, just to clear this up, exactly WHO are you blaming this on???

The Easter Bunny?
Santa Clause?
The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Mickey Mouse?

Or maybe, just maybe, John, was that "comparison" intended to be KKK innuendo against the locals? It sure sounded like it to me.

John, you posted statements that can very obviously be taken as accusatory toward the locals, particularly if you actually read the top-line post. Amazingly, you called me out for that exact thing earlier, now you "conveniently" forget about it when it suits you to change context.

And John, when you bring the KKK into this, that's more freaking low than anything I could possible say in response.

You also know better to bring up that "chief" red herring. It has nothing to do with this conversation. I can easily, however, believe that you'd be so illogical as to throw it out when you can't support your position with facts.

Get back to me when you understand the term "context".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on September 3, 2010 at 11:56am

OK, John, just to clear this up, exactly WHO are you blaming this on???

I'm not blaming anyone here. The only one who knows for sure what happened is the one involved and perhaps anyone else who was there at the time. The pursuit of anyone is up to those investigating this and that is after all other causes and sources are ruled out.

As I have repeatedly stated, this could be anyone (barring any natural or accidental sources). The theory of a "local" approach is because of anti-Muslim sentiment which has seeminly increased after the WTC debate. "Local" means that this incident is away from the WTC site, but could be because of issues raised. Just like a proposed burning of the Quaran in FL would be a "local" approach.

Or maybe, just maybe, John, was that "comparison" intended to be KKK innuendo against the locals? It sure sounded like it to me.

Because you jumped to conclusions without asking questions. Let me clarify, again, for you. The comparison was again, in reply to Jim posing this question:
"Would I fight a fire there as hard as I would at my own Baptist Church? As far as I know....Because as far as I know, this mosque does not house a radical fundamentalist group."

And John, when you bring the KKK into this, that's more freaking low than anything I could possible say in response.

The issue with the KKK is that it is a radical extremist group, is it not? It is a group known for instilling terror, is it not? It is a group known for their own set of beliefs, is it not? Members have been known to be in all sorts of professions and not always known to friends, neighbors, even family about their involvement, have they not?

So my comparison was to question as to why one would question about fighting a fire in a mosque as compared to their own church, because as far as they knew, the mosque does not house a radical fundalmentalist group. The point of the matter is that anyplace could house a radical fundamentalist group or even have members of a fundamentalist group along with everyone else, unbeknownst to the general membership.

To break that down further, it is like if someone is arrested and charged with any number of crimes, rape, murder, kidnapping, robbery, etc. As an investigation goes on such things like bomb making, weapons cache, anti-govt conspiracy, etc. comes to light. The news media, looking for the story, starts to interview family, friends, neighbors, etc of the accussed and one of the common type of response is "He kept to himself", "He was involved in the church and community, who would ever think he would do such a thing" and so on and so forth.

Take for example the BTK murderer. He was involved in the community, he was involved in the church, in Boy Scouts, had been well known to many and so forth. When he was arrested and his past came to light, people couldn't believe such a person could do this. This person held a very dark secretive life unbeknownest to even the people closest to him. So how is it not possible the same could not be true for other people out there? Would you truly know about someone's past, even if they are a member of your congregation, even if they are involved in the community and so forth?

So the point of the whole matter is why ask such a question as to fighting a fire in a mosque "Because as far as I know, this mosque does not house a radical fundamentalist group".....when radical fundamentalists could be anywhere. Get it?

John, you posted statements that can very obviously be taken as accusatory toward the locals, particularly if you actually read the top-line post.

Is this what you are referring to?
This has nothing to do with what is happening in NYC, except for the possibility this is a local approach towards resentment/hate of the religious group, spurred on by the emotional wave and publicity because of the WTC site. This really is no different than the hate/race crimes perpetuated by "homegrown terrorist" groups like the KKK, to instill fear to blacks, civil rights activists, etc. "

Yes, I can see where this can confuse, especially if one read this and only this, without reading any other replies. This reply was in the topic in general (noted as such because it was the second post in this thread and there was no faint arrow and indent to indicate I was replying directly to Jim)
Jim made the comment about the WTC mosque and this was a general reply that this issue is not about the WTC mosque EXCEPT, that the reason for this could have been due to the publicity and public emotions surrounding the controversy in NYC. Hence the term again of "local" meaning not in NYC. It doesn't mean the act was done by people local to that area, but by someone using this site to make a statement as opposed to the NYC site. (if again that is even the case after all other causes are investigated)

As I mentioned that I wasn't accusing, but making an educated guess based upon the information in the article. Stating this being no different than hate crimes of the past, again having explained this, is due to the emotions and public sentitment about NYC, the history of vandalism at the site, and the concerns implying this site would be a haven for terrorists (all can be found in the article) can lead as to the suspicion for one to believe this to be a hate crime. Much like crimes of the past, the circumstances surrounding this could be construed that way....never did I once say that was what happened and what this is.

Amazingly, you called me out for that exact thing earlier, now you "conveniently" forget about it when it suits you to change context
Conveniently? No, because I never accused, I questioned. I questioned why I must be the only one who is spreading immflammatory speculation when the info was contained in the article. I questioned as to why I am the only one you replied to about that. In case you haven't noticed, I am the only one on this thread you responded to (sans once to Jack) despite others mentioning a hate crime etc.

Whereas you came right out and said I was accusing the locals here because you jumped to a conclusion without asking questions. You instead stated I am accusing locals because of innuendo.