Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Kip Hill The Spokesman-Review

March 2, 2014
SPRINGDALE, Wash. – From the cluttered back stoop of Raqeebah Amatallah’s one-story farmhouse in rural Stevens County, it’s hard to see how the snow-covered wooden structure about 50 yards away could prompt years of legal battles.

Inside, there’s evidence of human occupation: a wood stove with charred kindling, a hot plate with stains from countless cooked meals, and some empty coffee cans. But no one has been there for weeks, Amatallah said.

The Town Council of Springdale, Wash., thinks the two-story building is a shed not suitable for living. Amatallah’s late husband, Dawud Ahmad, and two of his impoverished pupils who moved into the structure in 2010 fought back, saying they have a right to ask for an exemption of building codes under the Islamic pillar of charity.

So far, the courts have sided with the town. But a new appeal under federal law could change that.

Amatallah said the structure was originally meant to serve as an office for her husband, an Islamic convert and self-proclaimed sheik who corresponded with adherents in the region and around the globe through the Internet. The couple moved to Springdale in 1993.

“We both loved it. It’s a cute little place,” said Amatallah, dressed in a traditional hijab and sipping tea surrounded by her late husband’s books. She received word in December that her husband’s organization, Muslim America, and one of his pupils, co-defendant Bedreddin Iman, owed Springdale $23,000 in legal fees as a result of the latest appellate court opinion.

“I don’t know if that’s chump change for people nowadays, but it’s not for us,” said Amatallah, who still lives on the property with her son, Hakeem Dawud.

Her husband was fascinated with the law, she said, and initiated action when the town moved to roust his pupils from the cottage – or shed, depending on whom you ask.

With Ahmad’s death in 2012 from liver and lung cancer, Spokane attorney and friend Jeffry Finer has taken up the case. Last week marked the deadline to appeal the most recent ruling, and Finer used a 14-year-old federal law designed to protect religious groups from stringent zoning codes.

“I am actively seeking … religious advocacy organizations that might be sensitive to what I perceive as a massive injustice” to file supporting statements in the case, Finer said.

Finer and the remaining members of Muslim America will have to prove the alleged discrimination against religious freedom fits into case law that has formed since the passage of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in 2000. If the history of the case is any indication, it will be a tough, time-consuming and costly argument to make.



http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2014/mar ... court-for/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

grizfnz wrote:Building code requires all "occupied" structures to be served by water under pressure, (gravity flow from a spring or holding tank is acceptable) and connected to sewer or served by a permitted on-site septic system. Those requirements benefit both the health of the property owner and neighbors. Occupied structures are also required to have building permits and there is an owner/builder exemption available but you must still apply and pay a fee.

Just my thoughts here, but not everybody needs to own a home, regardless if the government implies it's your duty as an American to help stimulate the economy. In Stevens County youll hear people claim a $50 increase in septic permits prevents them from being able to develop their "dream". I'm sorry but If $50 breaks your budget, your dream of homeownership is going to become a financial nightmare.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:No kidding........I usually bring that much in booze to your tailgate.


I bet the same people complaining about $50 have $100+ dollar cell phone bills.

kalm wrote:

grizfnz wrote:Building code requires all "occupied" structures to be served by water under pressure, (gravity flow from a spring or holding tank is acceptable) and connected to sewer or served by a permitted on-site septic system. Those requirements benefit both the health of the property owner and neighbors. Occupied structures are also required to have building permits and there is an owner/builder exemption available but you must still apply and pay a fee.

Just my thoughts here, but not everybody needs to own a home, regardless if the government implies it's your duty as an American to help stimulate the economy. In Stevens County youll hear people claim a $50 increase in septic permits prevents them from being able to develop their "dream". I'm sorry but If $50 breaks your budget, your dream of homeownership is going to become a financial nightmare.

What do you know about Stevens County and codes?

pensword wrote:

Also, off topic but I'm going to be interested in seeing what happens the first time somebody does something like tell a Muslim photographer he can't refuse to service a homosexual wedding. That ought to be a good one.

The same would result if a Christian refused said service. Such refusal is protected by the free exercise clause.

If Hobby Lobby secured its right based upon the free exercise clause not to pay insurance premiums for particular abortofacient medications, it's difficult to imagine any scenario in which a photographer would be compelled to act contrary to his religious convictions.

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't like zoning laws. Yes I know the reason for them and I understand the pragmatic considerations. But I don't like government being able to tell people what to do with their property unless it's something very direct and obvious. Like for instance somebody starts a garbage dump on their property in a residential neighborhood and the smell becomes unbearable while at the same time it's attracting vermin that are impacting neighboring property, etc.

89Hen wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't like zoning laws. Yes I know the reason for them and I understand the pragmatic considerations. But I don't like government being able to tell people what to do with their property unless it's something very direct and obvious. Like for instance somebody starts a garbage dump on their property in a residential neighborhood and the smell becomes unbearable while at the same time it's attracting vermin that are impacting neighboring property, etc.

So you're for them as long as they share your exact views.