Frank Gaffney, Jr. President of the washington, DC-based Center for Security Policy testified about links of Murfreesboro Mosque leaders to Islamic Sharia Law and the Muslim Brotherhood during a Chancery Court hearing presiding by Chancellor Robert Corlew III.

According to a Channel Five news report filed by reporter Nicole Ferguson, Gaffney noted Imam Ossama Bahloul's education.

I think the fact that this gentleman has such a distinguished record in that institution, including high academic achievement, is a pretty clear indication that he is an exponent of Sharia." While Gaffney admitted to not being an expert in Sharia, he warned that local mosque leaders activities should be worrisome to the community. I see several things that are red flags from a security point of view, I think.

The hearing was on a lawsuit brought against the Rutherford County Commission by local opponents to the construction of the expanded Islamic Center of Murfreesboro project at a 15.2 acre site near the junction of Bradyville Pike and Veals Road in this Middle Tennesse community.

Channel Five Nashville noted the grounds of the suit filed by Attorney Joe Brandon on September 16th:

First, the lawsuit contends the county violated state open meeting laws by not properly notifying residents and allowing comment about he project before granting permits for construction.

Second there's a constitutional challenge alleging the mosque would provide a forum for radical Islam and endanger the community. This challenge mirrors a similar lawsuit already filed in New York City challenging the Ground Zero mosque project.

An AP report today noted:

Attorney Joe Brandon Jr. said that the local government fell short of the state requirement to give notice and that county officials met privately before the scheduled May meeting when the site plan was approved for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. The complaint asks for a temporary restraining order on the construction and that the court void the approval given to the mosque. Josh McCreary, an attorney for the county, argued that there was no proof that the plaintiffs would suffer imminent or irreparable harm and denied that the open meetings law had been broken.

All 31 members of the Rutherford County Commission have been subpoenaed for possible testimony.

The Channel Five report contrasted the arguments of Attorney Brandon representing the plaintiffs with that of Rutherford County counsel:

Attorney [Brandon] representing the Rutherford County citizens seeking the injunction claimed community security was at risk. "The (commissioners') arbitrary, planned and deliberate behavior to examine the multiple uses of the ICM site and the risk of action promoting Jihad and terrorism are not entitled to constructional protection."

Meanwhile, county attorneys argued that seeking an injunction to stop building permits from being issued for the mosque site is not the true issue at hand. "Clearly an injunction is not appropriate, the plaintiffs will have their day in court on the balance of the issues at a later day," said Josh McCreary. "Today isn't really the day to try the case, it's the day to have a hearing on whether the injunction is proper and it is not." McCreary called claims that county commissioners and planning board members acted in fear to approve the site "inappropriate."

Following day one testimony, county attorney Jim Cope indicated this suit was directed toward the wrong party, although he's not encouraging a suit be brought against those building or supporting the mosque. "If you're going to stop somebody from building something you're objecting to, they should have been before the court," said Cope. "For us to be restrained now, we don't think that serves any purpose whatsoever."

Testimony continues Tuesday morning.