.
.
May 23, 2022 | BY DR. ELIZABETH A. YATES AND AZKA MAHMOOD
This toolkit offers recommendations and resources to understand, preempt, and challenge opposition to mosque and Islamic center construction and expansion. Because opposition to mosque construction can itself become an accelerant/driver of increased anti-Muslim organizing and narratives in communities, these recommendations also support leaders with preventing escalations in anti-Muslim narratives and organizing from taking hold in their communities.
.
As a pluralistic society hosting a multitude of faiths, the ability of faith groups to worship, gather, and access faith-based services is critical in the United States. For American Muslims, that space is the mosque or Islamic center. Mosques offer Americans who are Muslims a place to gather for Friday congregational prayers, the obligatory five daily prayers, for Eid holiday worship services, and Ramadan iftars and nightly prayers. In addition to worship, American mosques and Islamic centers provide Muslims with a range of services, from youth and adult education, social services and counseling, community gatherings, and social clubs. And, mosques in America do not just benefit Muslims, they are good for democracy. ISPU’s American Muslim Poll 2016 finds that frequent mosque attendance is linked to higher levels of civic engagement and that Muslims with strong religious identities are more likely to have strong American identities.
Opposition to the construction and expansion of mosques and community centers for Muslims in the United States has been documented since the 1980s. The growth of the Muslim community in the U.S. and the emergence of more prominent and purpose-built dedicated places of worship made new mosques more susceptible to opposition. Since the 1980s and through to the present, mosques across the U.S. face anti-mosque activity, including arson, vandalism, break-ins, and hate activity. According to research, the last decade saw the highest levels of opposition to mosques and more than a quarter of mosques faced opposition to construction or expansion.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects citizens’ right to practice their religion. Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty make it illegal to discriminate against individuals or groups based on religion. As such, the freedom to build houses of worship is enshrined within the U.S. Constitution. However, Islamophobia and bigotry persist and extend to the creation and use of spaces of worship by Muslims. There is evidence of coordinated efforts by anti-Muslim groups and individuals to oppose the construction and expansion of mosques under the guise of developmental concerns. In addition, a well-funded Islamophobia industry that spreads fear and deliberate misinformation about Muslims, biases in media and legal representation of Muslims, and a general lack of knowledge about Muslims and Islam create difficulty in parsing through real intentions behind opposition to mosques.
This toolkit offers recommendations and resources to understand, preempt, and challenge opposition to mosque and Islamic center construction and expansion. Because opposition to mosque construction can itself become an accelerant/driver of increased anti-Muslim organizing and narratives in communities, these recommendations also support leaders with preventing escalations in anti-Muslim narratives and organizing from taking hold in their communities.
The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) and Over Zero analyzed 42 instances of mosque opposition and two in-depth case studies to unveil the dynamics of mosque opposition. We also analyzed a 2016 book titled Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight, released by the Center for Security Policy, an organization founded by Frank Gaffney Jr., who the Southern Poverty Law Center deemed “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.” This book aims to equip zoning planners and citizens with tools to “confront” mosque construction. We reference the tactics recommended in this frequently used handbook with documented instances of mosque opposition.
This toolkit is a resource for organizations seeking an understanding of the dynamics of anti-Muslim organizing and narratives in opposition to efforts to build or expand mosques and Islamic centers. It focuses on developing an understanding of the challenge and how it manifests as well as providing case studies and suggestions for how communities can proactively navigate these dynamics to prevent anti-Muslim narratives and organizing from interfering/taking hold.
→ This toolkit deals with multiple manifestations of Islamophobia. For the purpose of this toolkit, “anti-Muslim” is operationalized to refer to individuals and organizations who, through their expressed ideas, advance negative stereotypes of Muslims and Islam, intentionally or otherwise.
Research conducted by ISPU found evidence that opposition to mosque construction and expansion in the U.S. dates back to the 1980s. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, this opposition occurred alongside the growth of the U.S. Muslim community and the evolution of many mosques, from innocuous storefront centers to purpose-built dedicated places of worship, Islamic education, and community activities. These new mosques were more prominent, which made them more susceptible to opposition. Throughout this time and to the present, mosques across the U.S. also face anti-mosque activity, including arson, vandalism, break-ins, and hate-based acts.
Opposition to construction and expansion of mosques and Islamic centers occurs in a context where most Americans neither personally know a Muslim nor very much about Islam. This leaves room for a distorted view of Muslims rooted in negative stereotypes perpetrated by those in positions of power and the media. Indeed, biases in media and legal representation of Muslims have been found in research. Further, there is a well-funded Islamophobia industry that traffics in fear and deliberate misinformation about Muslims. Amidst this environment, some Americans are resistant to or confused about the growing Muslim community in the United States.
While there is ample evidence of a long and coordinated movement to manufacture bigotry and demonize Islam, the concerted effort to singularly push against the construction and expansion of mosques under the guise of developmental concerns renders it difficult to parse through the true intention behind opposition to mosque construction. Communities must educate themselves about the possibility of such pushback. Preparation, community engagement, and timely proactive measures can limit opportunities for opposition to fuel anti-Muslim sentiment or organize in the communities where mosques and Islamic centers are being built or proposed.
ISPU collaborated with Over Zero to develop this toolkit. Researchers used a list of anti-mosque activity reports compiled and made publicly available by the ACLU, further information about these cases using online sources, two case studies conducted by ISPU, previous ISPU publications outlining best practices for urban planners and mosque officials when undertaking mosque construction or expansion, and analysis of the book Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight by Karen Lugo, published by the Center for Security Policy.
We envision this toolkit as a living document, to be updated as new research becomes available.
This toolkit offers recommendations and resources to understand, preempt, and challenge opposition to mosque and Islamic center construction and expansion. Because opposition to mosque construction can itself become an accelerant/driver of increased anti-Muslim organizing and narratives in communities, these recommendations also support leaders with preventing escalations in anti-Muslim narratives and organizing from taking hold in their communities.
Opposition to the construction and expansion of mosques and community centers for Muslims in the United States has been documented since the 1980s. The growth of the Muslim community in the U.S. and the emergence of more prominent and purpose-built dedicated places of worship made new mosques more susceptible to opposition. Since the 1980s and through to the present, mosques across the U.S. face anti-mosque activity, including arson, vandalism, break-ins, and hate activity. According to research, the last decade saw the highest levels of opposition to mosques and more than a quarter of mosques faced opposition to construction or expansion.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects citizens’ right to practice their religion. Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty make it illegal to discriminate against individuals or groups based on religion. As such, the freedom to build houses of worship is enshrined within the U.S. Constitution. However, Islamophobia and bigotry persist and extend to the creation and use of spaces of worship by Muslims. There is evidence of coordinated efforts by anti-Muslim groups and individuals to oppose the construction and expansion of mosques under the guise of developmental concerns. In addition, a well-funded Islamophobia industry that spreads fear and deliberate misinformation about Muslims, biases in media and legal representation of Muslims, and a general lack of knowledge about Muslims and Islam create difficulty in parsing through real intentions behind opposition to mosques.
This toolkit offers recommendations and resources to understand, preempt, and challenge opposition to mosque and Islamic center construction and expansion. Because opposition to mosque construction can itself become an accelerant/driver of increased anti-Muslim organizing and narratives in communities, these recommendations also support leaders with preventing escalations in anti-Muslim narratives and organizing from taking hold in their communities.
The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) and Over Zero analyzed 42 instances* of mosque opposition and two in-depth case studies to unveil the dynamics of mosque opposition. We also analyzed a 2016 book titled Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight, released by the Center for Security Policy, an organization founded by Frank Gaffney Jr., who the Southern Poverty Law Center deemed “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.” This book aims to equip zoning planners and citizens with tools to “confront” mosque construction. We reference the tactics recommended in this frequently used handbook with documented instances of mosque opposition.
This toolkit is a resource for organizations seeking an understanding of the dynamics of anti-Muslim organizing and narratives in opposition to efforts to build or expand mosques and Islamic centers. It focuses on developing an understanding of the challenge and how it manifests as well as providing case studies and suggestions for how communities can proactively navigate these dynamics to prevent anti-Muslim narratives and organizing from interfering/taking hold.
→ This toolkit deals with multiple manifestations of Islamophobia. For the purpose of this toolkit, “anti-Muslim” is operationalized to refer to individuals and organizations who, through their expressed ideas, advance negative stereotypes of Muslims and Islam, intentionally or otherwise.
Research conducted by ISPU found evidence that opposition to mosque construction and expansion in the U.S. dates back to the 1980s. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, this opposition occurred alongside the growth of the U.S. Muslim community and the evolution of many mosques, from innocuous storefront centers to purpose-built dedicated places of worship, Islamic education, and community activities. These new mosques were more prominent, which made them more susceptible to opposition. Throughout this time and to the present, mosques across the U.S. also face anti-mosque activity, including arson, vandalism, break-ins, and hate-based acts.
Opposition to construction and expansion of mosques and Islamic centers occurs in a context where most Americans neither personally know a Muslim nor very much about Islam. This leaves room for a distorted view of Muslims rooted in negative stereotypes perpetrated by those in positions of power and the media. Indeed, biases in media and legal representation of Muslims have been found in research. Further, there is a well-funded Islamophobia industry that traffics in fear and deliberate misinformation about Muslims. Amidst this environment, some Americans are resistant to or confused about the growing Muslim community in the United States.
While there is ample evidence of a long and coordinated movement to manufacture bigotry and demonize Islam, the concerted effort to singularly push against the construction and expansion of mosques under the guise of developmental concerns renders it difficult to parse through the true intention behind opposition to mosque construction. Communities must educate themselves about the possibility of such pushback. Preparation, community engagement, and timely proactive measures can limit opportunities for opposition to fuel anti-Muslim sentiment or organize in the communities where mosques and Islamic centers are being built or proposed.
ISPU collaborated with Over Zero to develop this toolkit. Researchers used a list of anti-mosque activity reports compiled and made publicly available by the ACLU, further information about these cases using online sources, two case studies conducted by ISPU, previous ISPU publications outlining best practices for urban planners and mosque officials when undertaking mosque construction or expansion, and analysis of the book Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight by Karen Lugo, published by the Center for Security Policy.
We envision this toolkit as a living document, to be updated as new research becomes available.
.
To effectively navigate and respond to opposition to mosques, community organizations and leaders can equip themselves with several key strategies. In this section, these strategies are organized into (1) land selection and education; (2) coalition building; and (3) responding strategically (communications and other preparatory steps). At the conclusion of this section, strategies are grouped as recommendations for specific stakeholders that deal with mosque opposition.
While the below discussion offers generalized recommendations, it’s critical that the strategies be tailored to local dynamics — the specific nature of the opposition and those involved, any community history of interfaith division or cooperation, and the messages, speakers, and approaches most likely to be effective within the concerned community.
This report was produced in partnership with Over Zero. Over Zero partners with community leaders, civil society, and researchers to harness the power of communication to prevent, resist and rise above identity-based violence and other forms of group-targeted harm.
ISPU and Over Zero would like to acknowledge our generous partners at the Democracy Fund, whose support made this report possible.
Preparatory Considerations
Messaging Considerations
For mosque leadership:
For interfaith and community allies:
For city council members and policy makers:
For media:
In this section, this toolkit will highlight the nature, frequency, and history of anti-mosque activities in the U.S. and the ways in which they are intertwined with a broader context of anti-Muslim narratives and mobilization. To further understand these dynamics, this section provides an overview of findings from an analysis of the 42 instances of opposition to mosque construction or expansion compiled in a dataset by the ACLU for the years 2010 to 2018.
In addition, we analyze a 2016 book released by the Center for Security Policy titled Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight, which aims to equip zoning planners and citizens with tools to “confront” mosque construction. The Center for Security Policy was founded by “renowned Islamophobe” Frank Gaffney Jr., and the book is authored by Karen Lugo, Esq., a constitutional law and religious land use specialist. As a known resource to delay or block mosque construction in the U.S., we reference the tactics recommended in this handbook with documented instances of mosque opposition.
Of the 42 mosque opposition cases reviewed, the analysis found evidence of explicitly anti-Muslim sentiment in 30 cases. Below, we review an analysis of these 30 cases with a focus on (1) findings on timing, national and local narratives, and national and local organizing; (2) a breakdown of the most common narratives and frames mobilized for opposition (and, in some cases, used to counter the opposition); and (3) the opposition tactics used.
Timing of opposition incidents
Our analysis of the data indicates that national events and anti-Muslim rhetoric, in particular flashpoint events around political cycles and national mosque opposition, coincide with increased incidents of mosque opposition.
An analysis of the ACLU data indicates that mosque opposition activities occurred most frequently in 2010, coinciding with the midterm elections in the first Obama presidency and the highly publicized opposition to the Manhattan Park51 Islamic Center, and in 2016, coinciding the anti-Muslim and anti-refugee rhetoric and sentiment that animated the 2016 presidential election. These increases coincide with a broader uptick in anti-Muslim activities across the U.S. around election cycles.
This finding aligns with recent data indicating connections between anti-Muslim rhetoric and anti-mosque activity. Since 2012, anti-Muslim activity, including mosque attacks, anti-Muslim violence, public statements made by officials denigrating Muslims, legislative activity targeting Muslims, and opposition to mosques partially follows election cycles (McKenzie 2018 as quoted in Hussain and Saleh 2018). Further, researchers have found that hate crimes rise as a direct result of fear mongering and incendiary rhetoric.
In nine of the 30 cases analyzed, researchers found that local public officials had expressed anti-Muslim sentiment with respect to or around the same time as the mosque case. While it cannot be established that public officials’ remarks spurred mosque opposition, this finding suggests that such rhetoric might deepen and perpetuate Islamophobia and, in turn, conflict over the construction or expansion of mosques.
In some of the cases analyzed, anti-Muslim opposition to mosques stemmed from only one or a few individuals. However, in highly publicized campaigns, anti-Muslim organizations have played key roles in Islamic center opposition efforts (Bail 2015). In 13 of the 30 cases with explicitly anti-Muslim expression analyzed for this toolkit, organized groups and political actors became involved in anti-mosque efforts. In five cases, existing grassroots political groups became directly involved in mosque opposition and discussed the mosque at their own events, had representatives speak against the mosque publicly, or encouraged group members to attend hearings. In another eight cases, local grassroots groups formed specifically to oppose the mosques.
In 23 of the 30 analyzed instances of explicit anti-Muslim resistance to mosques, the geographical areas showed signs of generalized Islamophobia based on a study of local grassroots groups’ public websites or social media pages. Records showed the areas had hosted events that likely included anti-Muslim sentiment, invited known Islamophobic speakers, or had active political groups that sometimes disseminated anti-Muslim content. In addition, 25 of the 30 cases were covered by news sites or organizations that often traffic in anti-Muslim sentiment though the role of such news coverage is unclear. This analysis likely yields a minimum count of organized anti-Muslim bias because the analysis only included public websites and pages and did not include local chat and websites.
Despite the nation-level media sources and political organizing that drives Islamophobic and anti-shariah sentiment, this analysis suggests that conflicts over mosques are largely local affairs. Opposition and proponents were represented by local actors, the organizations involved in the opposition were nearly always locally organized groups, and local municipal bodies were the primary vehicles for dispute resolution. Except in a few cases where local conflicts received considerable national attention such as in Manhattan and Tennessee, overt participation by national groups, if present, occurred in the later stages of the conflict after opposition had already mobilized locally.
The evidence of potent local mosque opposition efforts does not minimize the role of larger national and international anti-Muslim influences but rather demonstrates that where these influences are relevant, they have been operationalized and enacted through local political and cultural structures and involved the local individuals who make up their communities.
Our analysis divides mosque opposition into two broad categories: (1) anti-development arguments, and (2) anti-Muslim arguments. These arguments unfold within a broader context of Islamophobic and anti-mosque rhetoric described above. Further, we examine organized Islamophobic efforts that purposefully delay and block mosque construction through legal means.
As noted earlier, this analysis of 42 cases found evidence of explicit anti-Muslim sentiment in 30 instances. Importantly, anti-Muslim sentiment may be repackaged as land use concerns to render mosque opposition more palatable. ‘Legal’ [anti-development] opposition may mask implicit anti-Muslim bias which is difficult to parse through until exposed or expressed. Foley (2010) found that while anti-Muslim sentiment has sometimes infused popular opposition to mosque and Islamic center construction, such opposition is also animated by general concerns over local development. However, with evidence of anti-Muslim actors intentionally using and recommending non-anti-Muslim framing when mounting opposition to mosque construction to conceal true Islamophobic intent and increase chances of success in the courts, anti-development arguments should be examined more critically.
Indeed, our analysis shows a combination of explicitly anti-Muslim with general opposition frames, suggesting some support for the argument anti-Muslim sentiment has been incorporated into more typical “NIMBY” [Not In My Backyard] or anti-development sentiment.
Within each type of opposition narrative — anti-development and explicitly anti-Muslim opposition, we broke down the narratives of opposition into specific frames that were used across the 30 cases. The table below outlines these frames (the 16 most prominent anti-Muslim frames and their frequency and the six most common anti-development frames) and shows the frequency of each type of narratives across the 30 analyzed instances. Note that some comments and examples of opposition narrative frames touched upon several narratives. Individual comments that reflected more than one frame were counted as many times as was applicable.
In its foreword, Mosques in America by Karen Lugo is describes itself as “a how-to manual for patriotic Americans who are ready to counter the leading edge of Islamic supremacism: its infrastructure-building through the construction of shariah-promoting mosques that serve to alienate and radicalize.”3
Giving further credence to the purposeful muddying of anti-development narratives as well as how to sidestep allegations of discrimination, Lugo states that “While concerns over separatism and radicalization animate much of the focus on new mosque construction, these issues are not within the purview of local officials. These are very important cultural concerns and this manual will explain how they may be addressed in general at city hall and specifically in other community forums.”4
Among recommended actions that are rooted in Islamophobia but packaged as anti-development or procedural opposition, Lugo suggests that volunteer committees be “assigned to investigate all aspects of the regulatory process. These include: reviewing the zoning codes; researching and comparing prior approvals for similar treatment of other applicants; anticipating representations of event descriptions and activity levels; assessing safety concerns and impact issues; previewing comments to be presented at public hearings; and preparing statements for other venues on radicalization countermeasures and assimilation concerns.”5 (emphasis added) We also highlight oppositional narratives found in these instances that have been recommended by the Center for Security Policy in the Mosques in America handbook.
Across these frames, one common theme was the idea that the conflict was really a question of what “the community” needed or wanted rather than a constitutional issue — whether civil rights or private property. For example, one comment on an article in a local paper about the conflict argued that when the complaints of residents who opposed the mosque were dismissed, they were “disenfranchised” (Alpharetta, GA, 2010).
In several of the cases analyzed, there were clear narrative frames used by anti-opposition groups that sought to combat mosque opposition. Supportive arguments used to defend mosque-building were made by parties proposing mosque construction as well as allies. These positive narrative frames and their prevalence were as follows.
Note: As with the above, each frame was counted as many times as it occurred.
The below table highlights the different tactics used within this broader context to oppose construction and expansion of mosques and Islamic centers by looking at the different tactics and their frequency across the 30 cases of explicitly anti-Muslim cases analyzed.
Table 3: Forms and Strategies of Opposition
Note: These numbers only count incidents in which evidence of the tactic was found. Given the limitations of publicly available data, these data almost certainly undercount frequencies, especially with respect to tactics less likely to get press attention, such as calls to local politicians, for example.
Context: Plymouth Township in Wayne County, Michigan, had an estimated population of 27,000 in 2010. Part of the Detroit Metro area, Plymouth Township is about 27 miles away from the city of Dearborn in Michigan, home of one of the largest Muslim populations in the U.S. While affording easy access to cultural and social needs, Muslim worshipers in Plymouth Township found themselves commuting 20 to 30 minutes to attend prayers at the nearest mosque in a nearby town. In 2016, the Plymouth Township Muslim community decided to take steps to overcome the hardship of a long drive and build a mosque closer to their community. Thus, the idea of Rayyan Center was born.
Challenge: According to the founders of Rayyan Center, prior to 2016, the group worshiped at a small mosque called Meadowbrook Islamic Center in neighboring Northville Township. The mosque occupied a single-family home in a residential area. As the parking needs of Meadowbrook Islamic Center grew, the group petitioned the city to rezone the parcel to create additional parking. However, the rezoning petition became contentious after a local anti-Muslim activist spearheaded opposition efforts. While the opposition included some valid traffic-related concerns, the overarching resistance was Islamophobic in nature. The anti-Muslim activist drummed up local resistance to the construction of a mosque in their vicinity, arguing that they “don’t want Dearborn here.” Ultimately, the opposition campaign effectively halted the rezoning process, and the Muslim group sold that property.
With this recent experience in mind, the founders of Rayyan Center sought to purchase a parcel of land in an industrial area to minimize opposition from neighbors. After the land acquisition, community members petitioned for a land variance for the construction of a house of worship. Soon after the rezoning meeting was announced by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, the public became aware of plans to build a mosque in the area. A member of the Plymouth Township Muslim community heard callers complain about the proposed mosque in a local call-in radio show. A board member found “Stop the Mosque” flyers circulating in the area of the proposed mosque. The flier cited increased traffic and noise concerns around five daily prayers.
Actions:
Results:
Context: In 2015, members of the Muslim community of McLean, Virginia, purchased the site of the disused Berea Church of Christ, first established in 1959, with a view to construct the new McLean Islamic Center (MIC). The proposed mosque would be the only Islamic center in a 10-mile radius. In the decades following the establishment of the original church, the area had seen major growth. The site is now in close proximity to the upscale shopping mall Tyson’s Corner in Fairfax County, Virginia, and the surroundings have been developed into wealthy residential neighborhoods. Across from the proposed site of the MIC, a Tyson’s Sheraton hotel, a 24-hour Walmart SuperCenter, an elevated Metro and rail station, a car dealership, and a 24-hour gym were already operating. Half a mile away from the site were three churches, one of which, McLean Bible Church, is a ‘mega church.’ The neighborhood of Carrington abuts the site of MIC on three sides and has an active and well-funded homeowners’ association (HOA) made up of several influential individuals who are deeply invested in the progress of their area.
Early developments: The Carrington HOA took keen interest in all potential buyers of the church parcel and learned of the purchase of the church by a group of local Muslims through personal contacts. MIC board members, too, were aware of the historical interest and influence of the Carrington HOA in local development projects and their interest in the conversion of the church property into residential lots. Through research, the MIC board discovered that the Carrington HOA privately disapproved of the land deal. Preemptively, the MIC board set up meet and greets with all surrounding neighbors early on in the process of the purchase to establish good relationships and assuage any fears. While meetings with other nearby neighborhoods went smoothly, at the meeting with Carrington residents, members of the Carrington HOA casually mentioned their intention to legally oppose the construction of a mosque in their neighborhood.
Early Restrictions on MIC: Soon after the purchase of the land parcel and before MIC began operations at their new site, the Carrington HOA vocalized concerns about traffic and noise pollution to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in 2015. Though the BZA approved MIC to begin use of the land as a house of worship, it was with strict limitations on operations. While other stipulations pertained to zoning, usage, and construction technicalities, there were stringent regulations on operations. The three key restrictions were as follows:
MIC board members agreed to these conditions to start operations in some capacity and kept in view their limited membership at the time of inception. In 2016, MIC formally began operations and opened its doors to worshipers. A parking management plan was set in place, with ample signage to indicate parking rules. Police officers were hired for traffic management for Friday afternoon prayers. MIC complied with timing restrictions and remained mindful of noise activity. MIC also began work on pre-approved parking lot expansion in accordance with Fairfax County road expansions.
Neighbor Relations: As a gesture of neighborliness, MIC prepared for and hosted quarterly meetings with the neighbors to review conditions and operations that continue to this day. However, from the outset, MIC community members faced hostility from Carrington residents. In particular, MIC activities were subjected to surveillance by neighbors who set up lawn chairs, cameras, and other apparatus to observe traffic, count the number of congregants at the pre-dawn prayers, and monitor noise from MIC. In 2018, an anonymous complaint about more than 10 vehicles in the mosque parking lot was made to Fairfax County. Logistically, MIC was unable to impose a 10-person restriction on morning prayers for a 200-member congregation as there is no way to confirm or predict how many worshipers will attend Fajr prayer service. As a result, in 2018, MIC suspended morning prayers altogether to comply with the condition.
Challenge: After the filing of the anonymous complaint in 2018, and the subsequent suspension of pre-dawn prayers, MIC submitted a special permit amendment to the BZA to extend MIC’s hours of operation and remove attendance limitations for MIC as the MIC had met previous development conditions and had seen a proportionate growth in the size of the congregation. However, this amendment request was met with stiff resistance from the Carrington HOA over several contentious public hearings.
In officially registered complaints, neighbors expressed concern about decrease in their home values, increase in traffic, safety concerns, and elevated noise levels from mosque activities as the main reasons for their resistance to the construction of the MIC in their area. To bolster their arguments against MIC, the HOA conducted traffic and noise studies of larger Islamic centers in the DMV area and retained high-profile lawyers to mount a strong legal opposition.
Specifically, the HOA expressed concerns about increased traffic load for Friday prayers, during Ramadan, and on the days of Eid when the Muslim community observes the two largest celebrations in the Islamic calendar. New pedestrian safety measures, changes to existing turn lanes, and the expansion of the existing parking lot on the parcel were also opposed. The HOA also claimed that surface noise from cars driving to the mosque and the sounds from shutting car doors and locks at the times of the Islamic prayers at dawn and after sunset would be higher than the 85 decibels stipulated under the local Noise Ordinance that extended from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and disturb neighbors.
Informally and via in-person interactions during city meetings, HOA members revealed Islamophobia that simmered under the legal surface. HOA members commented that the MIC building would draw “Middle Eastern looking” people to the area and they did not want their neighborhood to “look like that,” among other similar remarks.
Actions:
Results:
.
This toolkit provided an overview of arguments deployed against mosque construction and effective strategies for countering this opposition. This research is based on a survey of 42 instances of mosque opposition in the United States, two case studies, prior research and guidance by ISPU, and best practices for resisting division, hate, and violence. As resistance to mosques will likely be grounded in local experiences, values, and conflicts, it’s critical that any strategies for response are similarly tailored to local dynamics.
Report Co-author, Researcher, and Analyst
Report Co-author
Report Contributor; Founder and Executive Director of Over Zero
Report Contributor; Regional Director, Europe at Over Zero
Report Researcher and Analyst
Report Advisor; Director of Research, ISPU
Research Project Manager, ISPU
Director of Communications, ISPU
Creative Communications and Media Specialist, ISPU
This downloadable infographic offers recommendations and resources to understand, preempt, and challenge opposition to mosque and Islamic center construction and expansion.
Bail, Christopher. 2015. Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/us/fbi-hate-crime-report-muslims/
https://www.ispu.org/building-mosques-in-america-strategies-for-securing-municipal-approvals/
http://ldsnet.fairfaxcounty.gov/ldsnet/ldsdwf/4636498.PDF
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/plymouthchartertownshipwaynecountymichigan/BZA115218
Citations for the section “Messaging Considerations”:
Paluck, E., L. (2009). What’s in a Norm? Sources and Processes of Norm Change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(3) 594-600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014688
Tankard, Margaret E., and Elizabeth Levy Paluck. “Norm Perception as a Vehicle for Social Change.” Social Issues and Policy Review 10, no. 1 (2016) 181-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12022
Martin, Steve. “98% Of HBR Readers Love This Article.” Harvard Business Review, November 24, 2014. https://hbr.org/2012/10/98-of-hbr-readers-love-this-article
Belavadi, S. and Hogg, M.A. (2019), “Social Categorization and Identity Processes in Uncertainty Management: The Role of Intragroup Communication,” Advances in Group Processes (Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 36), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 61-77. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0882-614520190000036006
Maynard, J. L., & Benesch, S. (2016). Dangerous Speech and Dangerous Ideology: An Integrated Model Dangerous Speech and Dangerous Ideology: An Integrated Model for Monitoring and Prevention. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 9(3), 70-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.9.3.1317
Hanne, M., & Hawken, S. J. (2007). Metaphors for Illness in Contemporary Media.
Medical Humanities, 33, 93-99. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmh.2006.000253
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2012). Misinformation and Fact-checking: Research Findings from Social Science. New America Foundation, Retrieved from https://www.issuelab.org/resources/15316/15316.pdf