"San Joaquin County, Calif., supervisors rejected a proposed Islamic school whose founders were deported to Pakistan in a federal terrorism investigation." However, the county supervisors said they rejected the school based on land-use, not jihad, concerns.
"Calif. county rejects Islamic school," from UPI, with thanks to Nicolei:
STOCKTON, Calif., Sept. 28 (UPI) -- San Joaquin County, Calif., supervisors rejected a proposed Islamic school whose founders were deported to Pakistan in a federal terrorism investigation.The supervisors insisted their unanimous vote Tuesday was based on land-use concerns and not the federal investigation of the school near Lodi, Calif., the Sacramento (Calif.) Bee reported.
The Farooqia Islamic Center would have included an elementary school, worship hall and community center. Neighbors objected, saying traffic congestion would ruin their rural life.
"I know these are good people and mean well," Supervisor Leroy Ornellas said, "but churches, mosques and temples should be located in cities."...
While board Chairman Steven Gutierrez tried to focus on traffic and zoning, some speakers cited the terrorism investigation that resulted in the June arrest of five Lodi Muslims, including two imams leading the project.
School backers rejected federal assertions that the school planned to train U.S. Muslims for jihad, or holy war, against the enemies of Islam.
Interesting how we infidels are compelled to resort to technical excuses ("land use concerns")to fight our civilizational battles.
In the early 90s, the Saudis petitioned a Swiss municipality to build a large mosque complex. The response of this particular Swiss municipal council: 'reciprocate by allowing us to build a church in Jeddah or Riyadh and you can have your mosque.'
Needless to say, the Saudi request was quietly withdrawn.
Too bad we don't have that kind of chutzpah here in America. On the other hand, too bad the Swiss themselves have abandoned such a fine principle as reciprocity for the mindlessness of political correctness.
The day we see churches, synagogues and Hindu temples erected alongside mosques in Saudi Arabia is the day we know that Muhammad's grip on the Muslim psyche has been broken.
Cornelius:
I totally agree. Reciprocity would go a long way to relieving concerns of Muslim intentions most particularly in Saudi Arabia, be it Riyadh or Mecca or anywhere.
I'm not holding my breath, though. And in the meanwhile, constraints on Muslim construction in the West are justifiable, in my view.
Let's give Chairman Gutierrez the benefit of the doubt. I'll bet that he's just trying to prevent the kind of the traffic jams caused by the last raid.
Any excuse to prevent the construction of a new mosque is a good excuse.
"In the early 90s, the Saudis petitioned a Swiss municipality to build a large mosque complex. The response of this particular Swiss municipal council: 'reciprocate by allowing us to build a church in Jeddah or Riyadh and you can have your mosque.'"
-- from a posting by Cornelius above
If my sparring partner deigns, I would like to hear from him about this Swiss municipal council's no-nonsense approach. The Italians -- Pertini et al. -- thought that there might be some reciprocal gesture after they turned over more than 7 acres of prime Roman real estate for the building of a mosque, not one mile from the Vatican, but of course nothing happened. Since then there's been a lot of water, that is torrents of Orianna Fallaci's prose, over the dam, and helped those eyes wide shut instead to open, and others have joined in to prevent another palpebral shut-down, any dangerous chiuso-per-ferie promptings that Islam-weary Infidels might naturally feel, but to which they must not succumb.
Chattilion,
I'm not holding my breath either, but the existence of a non-Islamic house of worship inside Saudi Arabia - should it ever happen - will indeed be the tell-tale sign that we've won the war of civilizations.
Hugh,
Orianna is prone to rhetorical excess but much like yourself, she certainly exudes passion. I devoured 'The Rage and the Pride'...perhaps it was easy to forgive her excesses and periodic inaccuracies just because she so thoroughly shattered the established parameters of convention and political correctness. To see a book like that on the shelves of 'Borders' and 'Barnes and Noble' was gratifying to say the least.
As for your question, the concept of reciprocity is problematic. The depredations of dhimmitude notwithstanding, Muslims could readily claim that Christians and Jews inside Dar ul Islam are allowed their own customs and laws (within the confines of their own communities). For example, Christians are free to eat pork and drink alcohol - both of which are prohibited according to Islamic Law.
Muslims could argue that reciprocity demands their right to Sharia inside of Dar ul Harb.
On the other hand, I have a vague recollection of reading that article about the Swiss municipality, scowling with satisfaction and muttering "shit yea."
My dear Hugh, Sandro Pertini, as President of the Republic, had as much to do with the granting of a building permission in the City of Rome than George W. Bush has with the street cleaning of Washington, DC. If you want someone to blame for the building of the Monte Mario mosque, find out who was Mayor of Rome at the time and who was Assessor (Councilman) for planning. Sandro Pertini was one of the greatest and bravest fighters for freedom in the twentieth century, the greatest head of state Italy ever had, and quite possibly the man who saved democracy in the darkest days of the terrorist time.