After reading an article today entitled " Toronto imam preaching hate instead of harmony" a question immediately came to mind. Is there really room for complete tolerance when it comes to religion? The more I think about it, the more questions arise. Can a person completely believe in one's faith practices without infringing on the practices of others? Who is to judge when someone's complete immersion in their religion, which entails spreading "their gospel" has gone to far? This one article is an example of conflict stemming from perspective. Imam Saed Rageah at the North York's Abu Huraira Centre in Toronto, Canada called on Allah (the Islamic word for God) to "protect us [Muslims] from the fitna [sedition] of these people [Christians and Jews]." He continues, "Allah protect us [Muslims] from the evil agenda of these people; Allah destroy them from within themselves, and do not allow them to raise their heads in destroying Islam." All of this anger-filled language stemmed from his opposition with Christians and Jews, as well as Muslims (who sought alliance with them) to pass legislation in Canada to ban face coverings for Muslim women. Imam Rageah believes that a liberty of Muslim women was being infringed upon. According to the article Imam Rageah continues his preaching saying, "I'm appealing to the congregation not [to] allow such foolish people to be in charge of the affairs of the umma [family of all Muslims] to the point they would make such serious decisions for us. Our wives have the right to wear it. We should not allow them to dictate how we live. What we should do. Where we should eat. Enough is enough."
Its interesting that Muslims within the same region [Canada], both speaking from their area of power could have different viewpoint on an issue involving the liberty of its women. According to the article it was the Canadian Muslim Congress who called for a ban of the burka or niqab in public. Their rationale: "the right [to wear the burka] should not be protected by the Charter's guarantee of religious freedom because nowhere in the Koran is there a requirement for women to cover their faces in public." They argue that the burka "marginalizes women." The burka is central to this battle between the modern and historical perception of what the Muslim woman should be. When looked at that from that perspective there potentially is an argument to be had. However, Imam Rageah's languauge merits rebuke regardless of who it's intended for. Traditional concepts are continually being challenged, thus the better approach would be for Imam Rageah to continue encouraging his congregation (as he has), to contact their members of congress to voice their concerns. The same Congress who proposed the legislation in the first place. Such an approach is less likely to draw negative attention to a religion or congregation.
-O.Lucius
