While the proposed Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan has sparked raging debates on whether the initiative is appropriate or even moral especially when alluding to the 9/11 Al Qaeda attack, Abdelhamid Shaari could only hope that his aspiration of building a mosque for his congregants in Milan, Italy would at least inspire some form of conversation.

At best, Shaari’s campaign for a place for prayer for his fellow Italian Muslims is currently confined in a concert stadium following decades of lobbying and dealing with extreme opposition for his religious plea, which once elicited a violent reaction from an anti-immigrant group that an almost shoo-in proposal for a mosque structure was eventually shelved.

For the rest of Europe, the Park51 controversy is simply regarded as a real estate issue entangled in a cultural conflict, eliciting less attention as compared to the facial veils issue in France and minarets in Switzerland.

Outside of America, the issue simply reaffirmed mixed feelings about the county as one Iraqi resident immediately concluded that the furor over the mosque’s location was simply reflective of America’s rejection of Islam.

Even if some sectors deliberately bundled the whole argument of a simple zoning issue into a potentially volatile religious discussion, the expected reaction from countries such as Iran and Afghanistan were relatively muted while China and Russia opted to effectively abstain from embroiling themselves into the debate, owing maybe to their own respective Islamic tensions.

China even utilized the issue as an effective vessel for sailing forward its advocacy of a strong secular state while US emissaries didn’t waste any moment in asserting that the whole debate only transcends America’s championing of liberal discussions and religious tolerance.

Elsewhere, the real estate question led some analysts to deduce that America’s melting pot image could prove restive over the long haul and its democratic principles would hardly offer any viable protection from the creeping threats of extremism.

On the other hand, while Thailand voiced out its grave concerns that US policies on Islam matters could bring untold repercussions across the globe, the more common and surprising reactions from numerous religious leaders geared towards the dismissive attitude.

Despite clear attempts by extremists to use the issue against the United States, key Islamic leaders aired their reservations on the planned mosque structure, dismissing the idea as a crystal reminder of unpleasant memories and the worst part; Muslims were putting themselves on the receiving end by insisting on the project’s realization.

Still, the structure debate has managed to spawn some form of religious debate, focusing mostly on the question of tolerance, which some pundits declared were too advantageous for Muslims who, they said, could argue for a prayer spot in a Christian space while out-rightly opposed to the idea of religious co-existence in an Islamic nation.

Palestinian researcher Khaled al-Haroub effectively summed up the whole conflict when he commented that “we keep increasing our religious demands vis-à-vis the West, while refusing to meet even a few of the demands made by religious minorities living among us.”

On the other hand, Lebanese professor Mahmoud Haddad said that Muslims would gain much better moral and political foothold once they agree to move the structure even if they have the right to insist on building a mosque near ground zero, thereby showing more concerns for the general good of all Americans.