On Sunday, September 22, 2013, the
leaders of a mosque in the city of Paterson, New Jersey filed a federal lawsuit
against their councilman, Mohammed Akhtaruzzman, for violating their right to
freedom of religion, as granted by the First Amendment. Akhtaruzzman wished to
rename the street on which the mosque resides in honor of a recently deceased
member of this Islamic group. The mosque leaders viewed this as a violation of Islamic
law, which is based on equality of all men.
The street name change was intended
to commemorate Alhaj Forman Ali for his contributions to the Islamic Foundation
of New Jersey, but Akhtaruzzman did not realize the controversy it would cause.
The mosque leaders found fault with the city officials for failing to notify
them of the proposed street name change. Members of the mosque argued that the
naming of the street after one person “taints the Mosque as a place of worship
where all men are deemed equal.” As a result, they believe members will leave
this mosque and find a new place of worship. The leaders contend that the
religious inequality that would derive from the changing of the street name
would cause a serious decrease in support for the mosque, and ultimately would no
longer be used for worship.
Ali’s family believes that the
opposition to the street name change is out of jealousy, and Forman Ali should
be recognized for his contributions to the religion. They argue that the street
is not the property of the mosque, and therefore the mosque leaders should not
have influence on what it should be called.
On Tuesday, the controversy was
settled with a compromise. After witnessing the outrage that resulted from his
wish to change the street name, Akhtaruzzaman agreed to change the street name
to be in honor of Jalalabad, which is the name of the mosque, and also the name
of the region in Bangladesh from which many of the citizens of Paterson have
come.
Members of the Bangladeshi community at the Paterson City Council on Tuesday. |
Had Councilman Akhtaruzzman not
agreed to the compromise, who should have won the dispute? The mosque leaders
believed the street naming would be in contention with their Islamic beliefs,
and ultimately prohibit their free exercise of that religion. But does the
changing of a street name really hamper their ability to practice their Islamic
religion in that mosque?
In my opinion, I would side with
Akhtaruzzman and Forman Ali’s family. I do not see how the change in a street
name could really deny the members of the mosque their ability to exercise
their religion freely. The name of the street is not a reflection of the mosque
that was established there. It was a decision made outside the religious sphere
of the mosque. I think the idea of the name change was a way to commemorate
this respected person in a way that is independent of the religious foundation.
This change would not directly hamper the members of the mosque from their
religious practices. No restrictions would be put on the use of the mosque, so
practices would most likely go on as they have done so before. The street is
not the property of this mosque and encompasses all other buildings and
organizations on that particular road. Therefore, it is not directly and only
associated with the mosque. It is hard to believe that the name of a street
would have such drastic consequences for the general religious support of the
mosque. The changing of the street name to one individual does not represent
the mosque’s decision to hold one person above other members of the religion.
Therefore, members will not be dissuaded to attend or support that mosque based
on its street name. The mosque leaders were likely not notified of the plan to
change the street name because the councilman viewed it as a small change that
would have little to no effect on the organizations situated on that street. Whatever
name the street is given will not alter anyone’s opinion of the mosque.
If councilman Akhtaruzzman had
wanted to change the name of the actual mosque to honor Forman Ali, I would
clearly see the contention with the Islamic beliefs. But seeing as it is the
street name, and not a direct association of the mosque, I do not see how the
argument for the prohibition of religious free exercise can be justified.
3 comments:
I completely agree with Maddie in this case. I do not understand how changing the street name - which is not owned by the mosque or by the people who choose to worship there - would burden their right to freely exercise their religion. While they may argue that it would decrease attendance to services, I find it hard to believe that people would stop worshipping there because they thought that honoring one man was not adhering to their faith based on equality of all men. Of course I am no expert on this religion, so I couldn't say that with complete certainty. But as far as the law and the constitution are concerned, I think Councilman Akhtaruzzman had every right to change the name of the street (which belongs to the state, not the worshippers of the mosque). He is not doing anything to directly hinder the people's ability to practice their religion, and so I do not see his actions as impeding their right to freely exercise their religion.
I agree with Maddie and Sayeh that it is not a burden to their free exercise since the street is not property of the mosque. If the name change happened around the corner, would it matter then? It is impossible to please everyone in a community, and the councilman is an elected official who is supposed to use his best judgment to represent his constituents. If he felt the name change was appropriate, then he should have done it, though I'm glad compromise was reached. I don't think free exercise was in question, streets are public property and they should be named free from any concerns about religion.
The street is maintained by the state and it should be completely up to the state to decide what its name should be. I admire the communities religious belief and humility, however it is not a religious matter. The community has every right to protest, but no constitutional freedom can get them out of this jam. I agree with Maggie, a compromise was ray of hope in the ongoing secular v. religious grudge match.
Post a Comment