“A woman who loses her chastity is worthless,” lectures the sermon-giver at Asra Nomani’s mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia. Nomani carefully jots down this statement in her notebook, right alongside the speaker’s other assertion that “Jews are the descendents of apes and pigs.” Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal correspondent who came face-to-face with extremism when her colleague and close friend, Daniel Pearl, was murdered in Pakistan, is certain that these statements of intolerance in her local mosque are intrinsically related to acts of violence. Thus begins Nomani’s “struggle for the soul of Islam,” a struggle showcased by Brittany Huckabee in her recent documentary, The Mosque in Morgantown.

As Huckabee’s movie follows Nomani’s fight for women’s rights, it shows how her struggle against conservatism becomes intertwined with her repugnance with extremism. The film focuses on how Nomani ends up conflating the two, explaining time and again that there is a “slippery slope” between intolerance and violence. Nomani’s protest goes from wanting to give women a space in the main prayer hall to wanting women to stand beside men in prayer and to lead mixed-gender prayer. Any other view of gender organization in the mosque is, according to Nomani, a sign of extremism, akin to the type practiced by Pearl’s murderers. Yet, as one of the conservative women from her mosque notes, what does extremism have to do with women-led prayer?

Although Nomani insists that intolerant speech is directly related to violent action and should thus be suppressed, she provides no evidence to substantiate the connection. Furthermore, because she is convinced of this slippery slope, she feels that there is no room for what the moderates advocate: slow change based on diplomacy and compromise. Instead, she calls for and attempts to lead an all-out revolution, bringing the media into the fray and causing many members in the community to feel not only exposed and ridiculed, but also afraid to express their religious beliefs.

It is this latter element – the fear felt by conservative individuals in expressing their religious views – that reveals a previously unexplored aspect of Nomani’s reformist approach: its infringement on her co-religionists’ fundamental rights of free speech and religious freedom. Nomani’s battle was and continues to be widely covered in mainstream media, making her strand of thinking increasingly influential. At a time when Muslim organizations are under tremendous scrutiny and mosques are infiltrated by FBI agents, it would come as no surprise that Nomani’s campaign, and others like hers, help strengthen society’s and the government’s perceived connection between religious conservatism and violent extremism.

While elements of her mosque leaders’ views are admittedly deplorable and should be reformed from theological and social perspectives, the highly publicized nature of Nomani’s commentary is troubling in a time when many Muslims already feel their religious freedom is curtailed by the government. As long as their speech is not directly connected with imminent, violent action, for those who sincerely believe that what they are preaching is part of their faith, having to curtail it for no other reason than the threat of prosecution is an infringement of their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The crux of the argument is that there is a definite, and very important, line between intolerant speech (constitutionally protected) and incitement to imminent violence (unprotected). Nomani-like reformism often targets speech that is, at most, bigoted or highly conservative, but which does not advocate violence, and seeks to suppress it. It amplifies intra-community issues so that they catch national attention and, likely, attract the attention of a governmental authority capable of exerting pressure. Such reformist approaches, in their quest for progress or even human rights, fail to recognize the effects of their actions on their co-religionist’s fundamental right to free religious expression. It is an infringement of free speech and free exercise rights when mosque leaders and sermon-givers do not voice their conservative views because of their fear of being equated with violent extremists by government authorities. Furthermore, while many people, Muslims included, would rather not have to hear intolerant speech, once speech limitations are legitimated for one group, transposing them to another becomes merely procedural, rather than substantive.

Consider, for example, that the same evangelical Christian groups that supported government investigations into Muslim speech now find their own religious speech under greater scrutiny. In the aftermath of the murder of Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder, there is a push to put evangelical Christian groups who advocate a strong anti-abortion policy under increased governmental scrutiny. More specifically, there is a call for greater enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), which targets whoever, “by force or threat of force … intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with …” either an abortion doctor or patient. Although the larger body of law makes intimidating statements relatively difficult to prosecute – given the finer distinctions between a criminally actionable threat and other sorts of intimidating statements – FACE, which allows for both governmental prosecution and private suits by doctors and clinic workers, does threaten free speech rights.

While the target of many lawsuits under FACE may be the Evangelicals, a vociferous pro-life position is characteristic of many Catholics as well. Speech restrictions on the former group can thus seamlessly be applied to the latter.

Which reflects a critical point: the survival of our most basic freedoms depends on our protecting them vigorously. The U.S. Constitution protects politically incorrect and intolerant speech, and even violent speech that stops short of incitement to violence, because to do so otherwise puts the state in the position of determining what is acceptable speech and what is not. Political correctness, for example, is a fluid concept, changing with time and circumstance; what is politically correct at one time or in a particular culture may not be in another time or in another culture.

And what some consider “extremism” may be another person’s genuinely held religious belief. Given the variability of people’s beliefs and perspectives, individuals should be free to negotiate these concepts among each other without the force of law imposing a particular view on them by punishing speech that the government finds problematic for social or political reasons.

While Nomani, as a non-governmental actor, does not violate her co-religionists’ right to free religious expression, her media-focused strategy to suppress such speech in a time fraught with anti-Muslim suspicion may easily convince governmental authorities to clamp down on conservative Muslims – hurting not just Muslims today, but other groups, now and in the future.

(Photo: Steve Rhodes)

Your logic doesn't make sense. You are saying that because it's legal under freedom of speech to spread hate against groups of people like women and Jews (it is illegal in Canada, by the way) then this hateful speech should be allowed to continue uncriticized in order to uphold the principles of free speech for all groups. But then clearly Nomani should also be afforded the right of free speech (and she isn't even spreading hatred!). As an aside, I doubt you'd support hate speech against Muslims. If you are saying that Nomani's methods are not effective in changing bigotry and extremism, then please provide alternative methods. If there is a chance her methods may be effective,, then why not support her? You agree with her goals, right?

I'm not saying Nomani should stop talking. I'm pointing out that she should be wary of her *highly publicized* conservatism -> extremism argument in a climate that would lead the government to accept her conflation and suppress non-violent speech. It's her approach that I find troublesome.

As for whether I agree or disagree with hate speech or her aims, etc. - my view on that is not the point. We can't suppress speech and ignore First Amendment breaches on the basis of our viewpoints. Because restrictions on 'bad speech' can and likely will be applied to 'good speech' at some point, we have to protect against the former and give people broad free speech rights.

Who else is challenging Muslims to change their innapropiate behavior towards women?

Just because you feel uncomfortable with what Nomani has to say does not make her approach troublesome. What is troublesome is that people like you are attacking a person without analyzing the person's reasoning.

Someone needs to bring attention to the inequality in our Mosques in their treatment and regard to women. Clearly, you are not going to be that person.

>>Someone needs to bring attention to the inequality in our Mosques in their treatment and regard to women.<<

Perhaps one of the most idiotic statements of the 21st century and one of the most cliched. God's rule will not be changed in accordance to the whims of a secularist. Since the time of Moses men ran the holy covenant and performed priestly benedictions. All prophets were men. Take it up with your creator if you believe in him enough. In mosques men are the clergy. Men and women are separated for many good reasons and in accordance to the faith, as it has been for thousands of years with all religions brought forth by the prophets to their perspective nations and tribes. You make it sound like women are flogged and put in chains. This is the most cliched and abusively bigoted statement used against Muslims and any organized religion. It is almost like when an insult is hurled towards someone in the form of a question. Go back to your "Baphomet" idol worshiping and your masonic doomsday secularist belief system.

What I don't understand is that if her knowledge and practice of Islam was/is so piecemeal why doesn't she openly renounce it (similar to Ayaan Hirsa Ali) and leave? If it is that oppressive simply vote with your convictions and openly cast it out. There are plenty of other faiths out there or one can choose the newly emergent atheism that was growing heavily in the last years of the Bush administration.

secondly, This is the 2nd or 3rd article about Ms. Nomani in the last 2 months that has been written (promoted?) on this site. Considering she openly writes about having committed zinna in her younger years:

http://www.marieclaire.com/muslim-wedding

the fact that you give the Muslim version of Britney Spears/Paris Hilton this much space and time says more about you than her.

Everyone should be free to say what they believe as long as they are not inciting violence.
I wrote an article concluding this same idea here on altmuslim.
http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2683/

The whole freedom of speech thing is a fascinating dilemma, and I am not advocating any particular approach. However, the caveat/claim that one is not advocating violence is often very thin. How often have we heard ... "Such and such a people is our enemy and they are also evil and the enemy of our God. They need to be stopped at all costs because they are destroying everything we hold sacred. But hey, I'm not advocating violence!" That's BS, becaue the last sentence is nothing more than a legal disclaimer should the minions of such ideas actually go out and "stop them at all costs."
We have also seen what free speech in the media on the part of neocon politicians has done. During the last presidential campaign the republican cheerleaders pumped up the adrenalin and blood rage of their grass root neanderthal supporters and then they refused to be put back in the box and even tried to boo Mccain off the stage when he refused to chant "Death to Obama" with them. Freedom of speech is like so many things in contemporary life. It can be deadly if not used wisely and with education and understanding.

Great Article. I find Asra Nomani to be very dis-representative of American Muslims. The Moderate-Conservatives of her Maajid were all against her! She had no support in her community once she began advocating women-led prayers. I urge people to read Morgantown's current imam's statement relating to Asra Nomani.

http://www.themosqueinmorgantown.com/forum/2009/06/08/chaudhry/

To kwaleed:
Have you noticied that the 3 or 4 articles altmuslim have published on Asra Nomani have generally negative? Like I said above, she has little support and credibility.

See Also:

http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/06/15/asra-nomani-and-the-mosque-crusade-lofty-or-ludicrous/

I don't see any relation between Islamic conservatism and violence. When was the last time you heard of a member of the Naqshbandi tariqa who took up the madhab of Abu Hanifa and subscribed to the creed of Imam al-Maturidi blowing up a cafe?

While I'd like to give everyone credence, because everyone does make a valid point, the reality is that by conflating one sexist cultural notion and conflating it with an unrelated extremist nationalist rebellion is doing a great disservice to 1.) The Truth I presume most of us are trying to serve 2.) the religious community we all want to uplift and 3.) The violent ideologies we want to quell. NONE of these things are being served legitimately by what Nomani is doing. That's the point. Its NOT doing anyone any good.

I see this situation as largely our communities fault. Less Deeni conscious people who are Muslim or Non-Muslim, are now monopolising on the failures of the community to deal with racism, sexism and violent/unproductive ideology that are finding religious fronts. Instead we'd turn around and say: "they're not killing anyone" or "she's just a slut"; rather than deal with the stagnance and morally unacceptable ideologies that are sickening the Ummah.

Massinissa >>> I don't see any relation between Islamic conservatism and violence. When was the last time you heard of a member of the Naqshbandi tariqa who took up the madhab of Abu Hanifa and subscribed to the creed of Imam al-Maturidi blowing up a cafe?

Still. You have to admit, that there is an ample amount of racism and religious intolerance and other forms of violence that she's documenting. And you'll be surprised at the amount of Hanifis who are finding violence an acceptable expression of the classical madhabs. The Pashtun of Afghanistan, the tribal courts of Pakistan etc. are orthodox Sunni and Hanifi. The issues of Fiqh are broad and disparate within the madhabs, so its not surprising that politically unacceptable ideas are finding ample space to spread.

kwaleed >>> the fact that you give the Muslim version of Britney Spears/Paris Hilton this much space and time says more about you than her.

Disrcediting Nomani is not going to make her views go away nor is it a reflection on Imams calling jews teh descendents of dogs and pigs. She get's this much time and space, because her "advocacy" and journalism actually do occupy that much space.

>> the reality is that by conflating one sexist cultural notion and conflating it with an unrelated extremist nationalist rebellion <<

I basically mean that an angry molvi in one masjid doesn't necessarily equate a sexist practice or a journalists killing on the other side of the world. He could have been upset about bombings in Gaza (legitimate), or the extent of prostitution in a community (legitimate), and expressing it in a poor way. That has nothing to do with substantive sexism in Iran or attacks on foreigners in Egypt.

Asra Nomani is NOT a member of the Muslim community. She's been milking Daniel Pearl's murder for years to promote herself as this "crusader" in a sea of evil shaggy looking Muslims in need of "enlightenment." Her knowledge of Islam is pathetic, Muslim children know more. It would a documentary 3x as long to document her disinformation. Here's a sample :

http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2009/07/five-years-later-asar-nomani-is-still.html

>Who else is challenging Muslims to change their innapropiate behavior towards women?<

Stupid question based on a false premise. I guess all one has to do with fooling idiots like you is produce a documentary and you'll fall for the lies.

>I find Asra Nomani to be very dis-representative of American Muslims. <

Absolutely. Its hardly shocking that western state media loves this charlatan. Its very simple, you can do what you want, jumping in bed with whoever, but you don't get to come to Masajid advertising your zina as a badge of honor and demand that it should be respected. If Nomani was a man, publicity would be nil.

>the speaker’s other assertion that “Jews are the descendents of apes and pigs.<

This is a straight up LIE invented by Islamophobes post 9/11. No Muslim believes this, no matter how anti-Zionist they are. Zionist vermin and their shabbos goyim followers misrepresent Qur'an 2:65,66 and 7:163-166 from the Qur'an regarding the punishment brought upon the Jews of SPECIFIC town for violating the Sabbath. The same exact story is found in Exodus 16. So no, the Quran does not call Jews apes and pigs, descendants etc." It's pure nonsense, it's insulting all the Prophets(a.s.) sent Bani Israeel, its insulting all those Sahaba and other reverts who came from Jewish backgrounds. Why would we be allowed to marry Jews then? Wouldn't that be bestiality? Absolute nonsense and malicious propaganda.
For Nomani to be promoting this sort of trash proves that she's a manipulative lying media whore. Political prostitution at its best.

@Asma: While I agree that Ms Nomani has accepted the false fears inherent in any slippery-slope argument, I also do believe that there is a link between intolerant speech and extremism. One leads to the other. But yes, instead of violating the 1st Amendment, lets directly answer these intolerant speakers with better Islamic reasoning straight from our Islamic intellectual heritage so people see the error of the speakers' ways and are convinced against them. Simply ignoring them gives them space to influence against all that is good and right with Islam.

..but then again, how do you answer dumbass khutbas when its sunnah and simple manners not to interrupt the khutba? Well, sometimes you just have to push those mofos out of giving khutbas. Let them talk elsewhere all they want, but at the very least, a responsible mosque would let a hopefully enterprising congregation member give a counter-khutba the next Friday, or lead a lesson session (dars) about why the khatib was wrong.

However, how often do you think that happens? "No, bruzzer, that would be fitna!" So, me thinks its the progressive and socially liberal voices which are afraid to come out because of the conservative tarring and bashing of anyone who does not agree with them. Two can play at that game.

>there is a link between intolerant speech and extremism. <

Like your consistent support for the war against Iraq and Israel's attack on Lebanon.

>how do you answer dumbass khutbas when its sunnah and simple manners not to interrupt the khutba? Well, sometimes you just have to push those mofos out of giving khutbas.<

Ah look at the adab dripping here. Oh but I forget this is coming from "mofo" munafiq who pretends to be a member of the Muslim community.

>its the progressive and socially liberal voices which are afraid to come out because of the conservative tarring and bashing of anyone who does not agree with them.<

An odd line(and deliberately false dichotomy of con vs liberal) coming from a neocon warmongering supporter of Bush jr's escapades.

>>> However, how often do you think that happens? "No, bruzzer, that would be fitna!"

I've seen these things firsthand. But you must understand. The Ulema are actually just scholars. Their entire schooling and development is in the institution of discussion with peers. As the society evolves, they collaborate. As they collaborate they deal with the deviances through their intellectual exchanges. They choose the best the amongst themselves (as they perceive it), and empower each other to reach further into their communities. The trick is not to banish a guy for misunderstanding the text, but rather to get others who are more knowledgeable to mobilise themselves.

We actually abuse the Scholars. We treat them like cheap paper-back novels. Just flip through their ideas till we land on the ones we want. As musallees, we use them like they're priests blessing us and sanctifying our social and personal lives. We don't engage, are afraid to disagree openly and have little intent of presenting our personal ideals to them. Its not fair. They are people like us, product of the environment like us, and need as much guidance from us as we need from them.

The Muslims must treach other with respect .. even the bruzzers. We need to be merciful to each others guys. We really do. We need to allow each others differences to not be a means of undermining our common service of the Deen.

@Ghulam: >>Their entire schooling and development is in the institution of discussion with peers.

I'm not sure this applies to all of them; I percieve that many, if not most classical ulema training consists of rote learning. Many ijazas are bestowed simply for having memorized different fatwa books or hadith collections and thier isnads. Perhaps the kind of discussion with pears may be occuring more today under the influence of Western standards of what scholarship means and Islamic studies departments in Western universities staffed by practicing Muslims.

>>We treat them like cheap paper-back novels.

Perhaps that's because most of them act unidimensionally like a cheap novel, or can only repeat rote memorization rather than rationally apply the underlying principles to new situations. Suhaib Web seems to be of the opinion that its ok for female muslims to study on thier own away from her family in Oklahoma because of the excellence of security here. However, others criticized him by simply quoting hadith which rigidly state thayt a female should not travel for more than 3 days. Even more, the South Asian source stated that this meant no more than 48 miles since this was the exact distancethat one could travel in 3 days during the Prophet's era!

>>The Muslims must treach other with respect

Yes, but I wish my fellow Muslims would make that easier on me by acting intelligently and within the manners prescribed by the Prophet's own excellent behavior.

>Yes, but I wish my fellow Muslims would make that easier on me by acting intelligently and within the manners prescribed by the Prophet's own excellent behavior.<

Absolutely, so why do you refer to your supposedly fellow Muslims as "mofoz"? Where your adab, gumby?

OmarG >>> I percieve that many, if not most classical ulema training consists of rote learning. Many ijazas are bestowed simply for having memorized different fatwa books or hadith collections and thier isnads.

Any scholar is bound to memorize the texts of their study. Its in the application and personal tutelage that the real learning comes across. And to critique men based so absolutely on a few flawed political statements, is not very fair, when they have are the gatekeepers and partners of the important traditions. Modernity is as much our state of mind as it is an accurate view of reality.

I've figured out that when the scholars refer to shariah, they don't just refer to laws and limits (i.e. the maintenance of peoples rights) .. but to personal conduct, social responsibility, etiquette, aqeedah, lifestyle etc. That's a tall ask of anyone and they meet it admirably in many situations. Its the politicisation and the consequent radicalisation that can blur our view of each other.

>>> Yes, but I wish my fellow Muslims would make that easier on me by acting intelligently and within the manners prescribed by the Prophet's own excellent behavior.

We should all try to exeplify his behaviour. But consideration is a two way street. The story of Hassan of Basra was that he was perservered abuse constantly on the route he travelled to and from masjid by a specific citizen. But when that citizen didn't appear one day, he enquired after his health. That said, noones perfect.