Asra Nomani

[mammal_mama]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asra_Nomani

I've recently learned about her, and have become fascinated by her life and her boldness and perseverance.

Not being Muslim myself, I don't have much knowledge of Islam. I do, however, identify with her desires to reform and stay a part of her faith. I've had some similar experiences, dealing with some Christian's attitudes toward breastfeeding in church, and also with attitudes toward childrearing. I've often been critqued because I don't believe in coercing or punishing my children.

When I read some people critiquing Ms. Nomani by saying she's "advertising" her "illicit sexual behavior" (she is a single mother), this reminds me of how some think it's immodest for mothers to breastfeed in public, or to talk (in mixed forums) about how breastfeeding is a public health issue, and how harmful it is for some in the church to perpetuate the belief that it's somehow "immodest" for mothers to nurse their babies wherever they happen to be.

I think both men and women face harsh criticism when they go against the tide of mainstream opinion -- but with women there is usually the added jab that we are also being "immodest," "pushy," and not quite "feminine" or "lady-like." And there is the accusation that we are trying to be like men rather than rejoicing in our femininity.

Which leads into a whole nuther thread that I'm about to start here ... I think I'll go start it now.

[Liquesce]

In Islam it is considered detrimental on an individual spiritual level to speak publicly about one's own sins. I'm not saying people who also publicly go after her for discussing having had sex out of wedlock are right to do so or aren't often just being spiteful ... just that, religiously speaking, there is a legitimate issue there. It is totally acceptable to be an advocate for single mothers, for people who have acted out of step with religious ideals, etc, etc, etc, and for their place in our community, so it's not necessarily a "hush hush, shove them in to the back room out of sight" kind of thing. It is necessarily a "do it within the guidelines given for spiritual health" thing though. Because it is possible to be an advocate without blatantly divulging one's own experiences, it is widely considered improper to do otherwise. More on that here.

As for Ms. Nomani herself ... she has been inspiring to a lot of people, including some of our own MDC mamas, so I feel a certain obligation to tread lightly here, but to be clear the complaints against her have not simply been finger-pointing calls of "sinner!" or talk of her being "pushy" or "unfeminine." Inconsistencies in her personal accounts and choosing the showiest and often least effective within the Muslim community methods of reform have led to accusations of being more concerned with self-promotion than change, and her often demonstrated somewhat weak knowledge of our religious texts, traditions, and methods have not won her a lot of friends among people who make those things primary to our own independent interests. Which we are religiously instructed to do. She has often casually expressed differences of opinion on non-negotiable ritual aspects of Islam -- the obligation of ablution before prayer, the required steps of pilgrimage, etc -- and non-negotiable behaviors -- whether or not zina, adultery, is all that bad -- and as a reformer of any kind that's just not going to fly. It doesn't work with what our primary -- revealed, not inspired -- texts say. I understand how someone coming from the perspective of an inspired faith can identify with what she's doing, but one needs to also recognize that what she's doing functions much better with inspired texts, and therefore comes off much more positively to a non-Muslim audience than to a Muslim one. As an auto-biographer trying to diversify the voices and opinions heard within the Muslim community, that's fine. But again, with reformer aspirations in mind -- as someone who has at times tried to use their voice to exert some level of interpretive authority -- that's a pretty big problem.

[Ammaarah]

Liquesce always says things way better than I do. I'm not a big Asra Nomani fan either.

[mammal_mama]

Thank you, Liquesce! You have greatly expanded my thinking on this.

So, if mentions of sin are wrong, then this means all the people talking about Ms. Nomani's "sin of being an unwed mother" are committing the very crime they are condemning her for?

What is weird, though, is that they see her very STATE of being an unwed mother as sinful. You can repent of fornication, but how do you repent of being the mother of your child? I suppose this is why Ms. Nomani's young man advised her to have an abortion when he didn't want to marry her.

I kind of understand the reasoning that talking about past wrongs we've done, tends to help other people who might otherwise feel inferior, to realize they're not the one and only person who's ever sinned. And therefore to realize it's not the end of the world that they're no longer a virgin, or whatever.

This kind of falls in line with the sentiment I hear expressed by some Christians, that there's not enough "shame" any more -- and that the best way to get people to do the right things, is to make them feel that doing wrong is really awful and is to be avoided at all costs.

When I was more fundamentalist, I used to (kind of) be able to wrap myself around the idea that shame and guilt were the best ways to prevent sin -- but now that I'm a Universalist Christian (believing that all of us will ultimately be reconciled to God), I don't see much use at all for shame and guilt.

I do see use for feeling a sense of remorse for hurting someone (whether God, ourselves, or another person) -- but a remorse that's not exactly guilt but more a feeling of empathy for the other person's pain, and a desire to do whatever we can to make restitution to someone we've hurt, as well as a resolve to do better from here on out.

But as far as just feeling overwhelming guilt, or feeling like "damaged goods" -- I can't see any use at all for that. I haven't read any of Ms. Nomani's books, so I don't know how much detail she goes into about the relationship that resulted in her being blessed with her precious son. But from some of the comments I've read, it almost seems like some see it as "advertising" that she even mentions that she fell in love, and discovered that she was pregnant in a country where this was an offense punishable by death.

Or maybe they even see it as "advertising" that she chooses to be a "public person" while in the state of being an unwed mother?

I guess I'll have to read some of her writings before I can really know where I think she's coming from (or where I think her critics are coming from). And I realize I am probably far from understanding the Muslim perspective on sin -- I think I may be superimposing the article Liquesce linked to, over my previous experiences of coming from a fundamentalist Christian tradition, which I'm sure is different from Islam in many ways I can't fully comprehend at this time.

[Liquesce]

No one who knows what they're talking about thinks she should be shamed for being a mother, period -- wed, unwed, divorced, widowed, doesn't matter. A mother is a mother: a person held in the highest regard. What frustrates people about Ms. Nomani is that she has often come off as advocating for a lack of need for repentance for the manner in which she became a mother-- for the religious, not only personal, lack of seriousness of it -- which in turn comes off as disagreeing with what is believed by definition of the religion (not only in a fundamentalist interpretive way) to be the inerrant word of god. That's the rub. And it's a kind of rub that can get under people's skin enough for them to in turn speak in a totally inappropriate way about her, and in a way that runs contrary to the Islamic guidelines for right speech. Sex outside of marriage is serious, divulging one's sins is serious, gossiping is serious, speaking ill of fellow Muslims without clear need is serious, disrespecting mothers and motherhood is serious, and on and on ... it's pretty ugly all around. But, like I said, that's not the only issue between her and much of the broader Muslim community. Talking about her is in many respects opening up that proverbial can of worms.

Sin and shame itself ... yeah, as you suggested, it can be really hard to discuss even just basic concepts across religious lines. Different cultures, different languages, different doctrines ... it's a muddle. So while we (Muslims, that is) would probably mostly agree that one of the best ways to get people to do right is for them to understand that "doing wrong is really awful and to be avoided at all costs," I don't necessarily think we would use the term "shame" in the same manner that I would in normal English conversation. We're pretty explicitly not pinning scarlet letters on people, you know? Part of the secrecy surrounding personal sins is about respecting one's self and one's community enough to not divulge, not about feeding an ongoing sense of guilt or fearing communal shunning.

[mammal_mama]

From what I've been able to read of Ms. Nomani's work so far (just what's available for free online), she HAS expressed the realization that she's made wrong choices.

With the comments I've read of her "advertizing" her sexual choices, I'd been wondering if she was going into graphic details or something -- but from what I've seen so far, she doesn't seem to go into graphic detail at all.

What she has done (which I realize many people and not just Muslims would see as showing a lack of personal dignity), is let the world know of her unwise choices to offer herself intimately to men she has just met, in the hopes that this time she has met her soulmate -- only to have the men use her sexually and then discard her.

I actually see this as potentially-helpful to women who've been treated in a similar way -- because when a woman like Azra Nomani who is beatiful, intelligent, and highly-successful, admits to having been repeatedly used and dumped, it's pretty clear that it's not some inadequacy in the woman herself -- but rather the men she is choosing.

So these women can maybe stop feeling that they are somehow lacking -- and start learning to use better judgment and make better choices.

[Liquesce]

Hrrrrm ... it's still just not a POV that works very well with the religion though, you know? I understand it, but it's just that Islam proposes other means of dealing with senses of inadequacy. And on that front what it always comes down to is understanding and realizing the will of god, and sticking with it -- to finding self-esteem and self-respect through choosing to earn god's esteem and respect. That doesn't mean muslims never need a little extra help ... but it does mean that in seeking help you still adhere to the law. So, for example, if you need to confide in a therapist or such, it's ok, because it's a need and there are always dispensations for need. But it's kind of like ... we don't eat pork. If we're starving and it's the only food available to us, choosing to eat it is totally legit. But showing up at the mosque with a big pan of ribs just in case there's a starving man there ... not so much. If someone in Nomani's position started an advocacy and outreach program for single mothers or young women or women with self-esteem problems, and in the course of her work she felt that revealing to those women her own full story was necessary to helping them, a religious justification for it could be made. If it became widespread knowledge from that, that would be on those gossiping about her, not on her. But if some of the accounts in "Standing Alone ..." weren't written indulgently and were written altruistically, what she wrote was a pan of ribs.

Which isn't to say there aren't other muslims doing the same every day. Just look at the blogosphere. Her controversy really is much more about her involvement in some pretty ill-fated activist techniques. Now, why a lot of people find it a lot easier and more desirable to try to drag her down by way of her personal indiscretions than by way of her inaccurate or methodologically unacceptable attempts at changes to Islam and its institutions ... that may well be a conversation worth having.

[mammal_mama]

You know, I think I probably do just have a lot to learn about Islam. I am greatly enjoying this discussion and would love to hear more.

[Bluegoat]

I think I can identify with this idea of not talking about one's sins indiscriminately. I think it's true that in certian cases it is ok - to help another individual having a problem, or perhaps to a councelor or religious leader to find healing and better ways of living for the person.

But just "going public" as a way to help other, is very rarely justifiable. This is the excuse we hear all the time on talk shows like Oprah or Dr Phil, and those are the good quality ones. I look at those people telling their story or getting counceled publicly, and I can't help but think that it is very bad for them, spiritually. In many cases it seems to me they are really interested in the fame of being on tv. They are looking for healing from a celebrity rather than God, and they are confessing to the public rather than God.

And I don't think it is good for the public either. They don't learn from it, it satisfies their curiosity, and their desire to feel better than other people. They aren't satisfied with the stories either, always there is the drive for more extreme, weird, personal stories, and the desire to but into other people's personal lives is insatiable - they become glorified peeping toms.

Compare that to what I think is a good program - AA and it's related groups. Yes, there is story telling and personal accounts, but directed specifically to other people in the same boat, and the privacy is absolute.


On a slightly different note, I don't think making people ashamed is the best way to make them be good - on the other hand, I think if I do something wrong, I should be ashamed. Perhaps the keys are knowing what is wrong, and taking personal responsibility for our own actions. I have no problem, for example, with single mothers coming to church, I think it is a very good thing. But very often, I find no one (the riest) actually tells them that fornication is wrong, from a Christian perspective. (Of course it would be a topic to bring up in a kind way at the right time.) There are many people in churches I have been to who have no idea about where our religious beliefs differ from the culture around us - we don't want to offend or seem behind the times, I guess. But certainly no one would feel shame if he didn't know he had done anything wrong.

[umsami]

I think she's very cool. I totally support her. I loved an article she wrote a couple of years ago in the Washington Post... "Going Where I Know I Belong"

http://www.asranomani.com/Writings.aspx


I love how out spoken she is about her past, etc. Especially, because in most Muslim-circles, a woman who does have a child out of wedlock, or heck even divorces... is pretty much expected to curl up and die. Be the shame of the family forevermore.

The Muslim community NEEDS more Asra Nomanis... more filmmakers like Parvez Sharma... more women not afraid to stand up to domestic violence like Rania Al-Baz... more women not afraid to stand up to rape like Mukhtar Mai...more women who stand up for their children of temporary marriages like Hind Hinawi... etc.

The thing is.. being a silent, "good" Muslim woman gets you nowhere. Hate to say it, but it's true. Women are invisible. Not taken seriously. It's going to take a lot of women being bold and standing up for there ever to be change.

[mammal_mama]

umsami, it is great to hear from a Muslim woman who likes her! That is a great article -- also thanks for the link to that site. I read the article you mentioned, and also the one about the woman in Nigeria who was sentenced to stoning for having a baby out of wedlock.

I hope they were able to appeal her case! And it looks like there are a lot of other good articles on that site. I'll have to go back and do more reading later.

The shunting women off to a separate place, kind of reminds me of how some conservative Christian churches would like to shunt off nursing mothers, and keep them away from the life of the greater congregation.

[mammal_mama]

Oh, and as far as some feeling like she has a poor understanding of Islam -- there are some conservative Christians who don't see my beliefs in universal salvation as truly Christian. Aren't their different sects of Islam, just as there are of Christianity?

[umsami]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

Oh, and as far as some feeling like she has a poor understanding of Islam -- there are some conservative Christians who don't see my beliefs in universal salvation as truly Christian. Aren't their different sects of Islam, just as there are of Christianity?

There are two main sects.. Sunni and Shi'a... and some smaller ones as well. There's also the Sufis as well.

I don't feel she has a poor understanding of Islam. She's committing the "sin" of thinking for herself. She's wondering why Islam could go from a religion where Allah/God gave women so many rights in the 7th century, that she towered among the rights of her fellow humans... to one, in the 21st century, where Muslim women lag behind in rights...and are abused in the name of their faith. She's just not a conservative Muslim. She's a thinking Muslim...and that threatens many (usually male) people. She's not Arab (strike one in most Muslim circles), she's a woman (strike two), and of course... she has to be held accountable for her past "sins" for-ev-er. It reminds me a lot of Irshad Manji. Her book, "The Trouble with Islam", was really targeted at Muslims. A Muslim audience. Yet many discounted it from the start because she's gay. So, for many, that's enough to discount everything she says. In Christianity, you'll hear "love the sinner, but hate the sin." In Islam, even though there are so many ahadith about God's mercy... the necessity to let only God judge people.... the necessity to forgive.... it is much more of a if you commit a certain sin (especially if you're a woman), that's it. You're finished.

I will never understand how numerous Muslims can condemn Asra or Irshad or Parvaz or whomever... and yet how they can exalt people like Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and suicide bombers. I mean... Islam is very very clear about not comitting suicide. Very very clear about not hurting innocent people... .heck, you're not even supposed to chop down a fruit tree in war. Yet people who *gasp* have a child out of wedlock or are gay are automatically non-Muslims??? :

[umsami]

June 15th, PBS will be premiering a film about Asra called "The Mosque in Morgantown"

http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/a...ow_mosque.html

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by umsami

I don't feel she has a poor understanding of Islam. She's committing the "sin" of thinking for herself.

Uh, no, she has misstated Islamic history, misrepresented the contents of the Qur'an, in some opinions has been dismissive of sahih hadith while relying on da'if when it meets her predetermined ends, and however oddly has declared an ignorance of facts as basic and essential to our religion as where Saudia sits on a map. That is a very different animal from simple independent thought. As I may or may not have mentioned in a prior post to this thread, it's been a long time since I've read "Standing Alone." I remember there being some pretty benign errors -- steps or hajj or whatever, getting the source of certain otherwise accurate information wrong, etc -- but being benign they weren't particularly memorable and I'd have to re-read to catch their particulars. What was memorable was one point of her "bill of rights for muslim women" -- that which pretty flatly declared that in Islam every woman has the right to exemption from any form of criminalization for consensual acts of sex. A feel good sentiment, the premise of which no one on this thread is really going to argue. But the problem is that she didn't try to contextualize or reinterpret or produce limits upon or argue the modern inapplicability of verse 24:2 or the related hadith; she simply eradicated them. When one asserts the presence of an "Islamic right" simply by erasing an ayah, it is just not going to be well received. You know as well as I do that you don't mess with the Qur'an. Treat it like as though it is as flexible as a rubber band, sure. But everyone knows to stop at the point before the band breaks.

There is also, IIRC, the matter of discrediting Abu Hurayrah wholesale. I don't recall if you agree with that or not personally, but I do know you're aware what a deeply contentious and long debated issue that is. And the matter of equating the story of Hajar with that of a zaniya. These are not thinker vs. non-thinker, anti-patriarchy vs. patriarchy kinds of matters. These are basic questions of adab with our predecessors. Again, you know the contentiousness there.

I will never understand how numerous Muslims can condemn Asra or Irshad or Parvaz or whomever... and yet how they can exalt people like Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and suicide bombers.

Mostly on the subject of such figures I'm pretty happy to agree to disagree. But I know you know you're making a false association here. Most people who disapprove of Ms. Nomani, etc, certainly do not support bin Laden. And most people who support open terrorists have never heard of, let alone even had opportunity to condemn, Ms. Nomani. It is entirely possibly to support her without implying that disapproval of her is associated with support of violent extremism.

[umsami]

I remember her "Bill of Rights for Muslim Women." I don't remember anything about no criminal prosecution for sex outside of marriage (although I really have no problem with that. I don't think women should be stoned for adultery... or men should be killed for homosexuality... regardless of what the Qur'an may say on the matter.)

Here it is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic..._in_the_Mosque

1. Women have an Islamic right to enter a mosque.
2. Women have an Islamic right to enter through the main door.
3. Women have an Islamic right to visual and auditory access to the musalla (main sanctuary).
4. Women have an Islamic right to pray in the musalla without being separated by a barrier, including in the front and in mixed-gender congregational lines.
5. Women have an Islamic right to address any and all members of the congregation.
6. Women have an Islamic right to hold leadership positions, including positions as prayer leaders, or imams, and as members of the board of directors and management committees.
7. Women have an Islamic right to be full participants in all congregational activities.
8. Women have an Islamic right to lead and participate in meetings, study sessions, and other community activities without being separated by a barrier.
9. Women have an Islamic right to be greeted and addressed cordially.
10. Women have an Islamic right to respectful treatment and exemption from gossip and slander.

IMHO, there is nothing there that is problematic to me... although I do know there are conservative Muslims who would take issue with women holding leadership positions or leading study sessions... which does ignore a great part of Islamic history. I mean all one has to do is look at Aisha (ra).

There is also, IIRC, the matter of discrediting Abu Hurayrah wholesale. I don't recall if you agree with that or not personally, but I do know you're aware what a deeply contentious and long debated issue that is.

She wouldn't be alone in this. In spite the fact that he is quite simply the most voluminous reporter of ahadith in Sunni circles, nearly all of his ahadith are dismissed in Shi'a circles. I would say that the issue of Abu Hurayrah is very much a anti-patriarchy thing. So many of his ahadith are so misogynist...and do not seem to mesh with either the life of the Prophet (from what we know) or the Qur'an. I think Khalid Abou el Fadl makes numerous good points on the whole issue.

As for ahadith "science"... I think that's a different discussion. However, I just find it interesting that so many Muslims use the argument that the New Testament was written after the time of Jesus (hundred(s) of years depending on the book) a a way to discredit it, but do not see the same argument applies to the collection of ahadith.

And the matter of equating the story of Hajar with that of a zaniya.

Are you referring to her organization Daughters of Hajar? (To the OP... zaniya is an adulterer.) This is the reasoning she gave for the title... "“Daughters of Hajar came together behind the spirit of Hajar, or Hagar in Biblical and Jewish histories, a strong-willed woman who was the historical mother of Islam. It is dedicated to the empowerment of Muslim women and girls. As part of a broader agenda, the organization laid the groundwork for a national ‘Take Back Your Mosque’ campaign with a mosque bill of rights for women.”" I don't see that she's called Hajar an adulteress? Maybe I missed something.

Most people who disapprove of Ms. Nomani, etc, certainly do not support bin Laden. And most people who support open terrorists have never heard of, let alone even had opportunity to condemn, Ms. Nomani. It is entirely possibly to support her without implying that disapproval of her is associated with support of violent extremism.

I disagree. The subset of people who do support Bin Laden, Hezbollah, and the Taliban most certainly would disagree with Nomani. Does that mean that everybody who disagrees with her supports terrorism? NO. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim Extremist who supported terrorism who did not disagree with her.

Of course... as so many Muslims love to shove people out of the field of Islam (not you)... for perceived sins... such as Nomani and Manji... I like Imam Zaid's take that the terrorists are not practicing Muslims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vik5W...rom=PL&index=3

And yes, I'm definitely a progressive Muslim. Even though I wear hijab. I know that.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by umsami

I remember her "Bill of Rights for Muslim Women." I don't remember anything about no criminal prosecution for sex outside of marriage (although I really have no problem with that. I don't think women should be stoned for adultery... or men should be killed for homosexuality... regardless of what the Qur'an may say on the matter.)

There are two "bill of rights" -- one for in the mosque, one for in the bedroom. It is the latter that contains what I was referring to. And the issue, again, is not saying "I disagree" -- it's indicating "says opposite." "I disagree with what this verse says" is very different from saying "Islam gives a right to" something that it does not. The first relegates the person to a particular kind of believer with whom one may or may not agree. The second is altering sacred content. Think of the sheer volume of modern scholarship that has been put into discrediting the "satanic verses" story, or attitude towards the fringe of the fringe "mathematical miracle" people who need to subtract a couple of verses to make it work.

She wouldn't be alone in this.

We're both well aware. My point, as stated, is that you know what a contentious issue it is to refuse to extend basic respect -- even when questioning their claims -- to a sahabi. Simplifying it down so that the religious issue involved in that aspect is a non-issue is disingenuous. Saying it is about patriarchy is just not right -- we both know questioning the veracity of a hadith or a group of ahadith is always much better received or at least more easily ignored than slamming an otherwise respected companion on a personal level.

Are you referring to her organization Daughters of Hajar?

No, I am referring the frequency of the comparisons drawn in her book between herself and Hajar, her life and Hajar's, her experience and Hajar's.

I disagree. The subset of people who do support Bin Laden, Hezbollah, and the Taliban most certainly would disagree with Nomani. Does that mean that everybody who disagrees with her supports terrorism? NO. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim Extremist who supported terrorism who did not disagree with her.

You would also be hard pressed to find a Muslim extremist who does not agree that wudu is obligatory. The two points, however, are wholly unrelated. That people who have never heard of her would theoretically find her objectionable only functions to connect disagreement with her to objectionable ideas themselves. It is dismissive of the terrific majority of those people who have taken the time to actually listen to her and still disagree with her ... but who have no love for murderers.

Things like "her crime is that of being a free thinker" to me smacks a little too much of things like "because they hate freedom." And I would like to believe that at the very least Muslims, given the recent experiences of the sum total ummah, understand the value in rising above that kind of loaded dismissiveness of people who fall on the other side of a divide.

And yes, I'm definitely a progressive Muslim. Even though I wear hijab. I know that.

Little known fact around here: I came back to the fold of Islam by way of the progressive muslim movement that obtained so much press in the aftermath of 9/11. PMU meetings, MWU volunteering, blah blah blah. I was pretty down on Islam and religion in general prior to that. The potential revivalism excited me. I'm not really one of the people running around with a chip on my shoulder towards the movement -- I have gratitude there. I left my involvement not because the ideals were all bad, but because the legal and exegetical methods were just not adding up.

There are three kinds of self-identified progressive muslims that I've known: the first is willing to say that when they disagree with something they just disagree, period. No rulings, no elaborate justifications, necessary. What's wrong is wrong. Very Mike Knight: "I don't need someone jumping through interpretive hoops to tell me not beat my wife," or something like that. Or yourself above: "Regardless of the Qur'an, the criminalization of adultery is wrong." I can respect that. I won't always agree, but it's being up-front.

The second are the people determined to work within Islamic traditions without hypocrisy in order to achieve similar ends. Hrm, I'm hard pressed to come up with an example that would be well-known, since mostly I just know those people IRL, but for example: I know a woman, an attorney and student of Islamic law, who wrote out an very clear exposition on why gay members of our community (a) can not be said to not be muslim, (b) should more or less be left alone, and (c) should not be prosecuted. All without resorting to making weak or inaccurate claims about the Qur'an or any hadith. I respect that too.

But last are those who attempt to use classical methods and rulings where it suits them, and dismiss them where it does not -- kind of a progressive salafi movement. Very much like the attempt at a religious, rather than simply moral, justification for the women-led prayer events -- that which was so easily shredded by people with actual training in the legal methods that were being employed. That's the one that I, and a great many others, find hard to abide. And, at least some years ago when she was a more hot topic, this is where Asra Nomani appeared to be most aligned. Which is why an objection to the reasoning employed by someone like her is not by definition some "rah rah, progressivism sucks" banner waving -- perhaps you've not known them, but there are a great many people who actually agree with some of her desired ends but who just can not support her methods. (The issue in the Morgantown Mosque being the biggest glaring example of that, particularly with regard to threatening lawsuit over the segregated balcony.)

[mammal_mama]

umsami and Liquesce -- I am learning so much from listening to your discussion, ladies!

One thing I am wondering -- Liquesce, you seem to think it's not a good idea to approach women's rights through a religious avenue. I am wondering what you ladies think of Ms. Nomani's assertion that the separation of men and women for prayer and teaching goes against the teachings of Muhammed?

Ms. Nomani has been saying that in the 7th century, the birth of Islam greatly raised the status of women in what had been a very sexist culture. This seems similar to what I'd previously learned of Christianity -- that the early letters to the churches introduced radical ideas such as the idea that men needed to be careful in how they treated their wives or their own prayers would be blocked, and also the idea of complete equality in Christ.

That the Bible and Koran seem rather sexist to us today (but I still need to read the Koran, so I'm just speaking of hearsay at the moment), is attributable to the fact that they were written in very sexist times. But from my understanding, the actual movements themselves (the Muslim movement and the Christian movement) were actually quite radical in their promotion of equality between all people -- male or female, slave or free, and so on.

So, I think Ms. Nomani and some others actually see what they are doing as getting back to the real heart of Islam.

[Liquesce]

And now I'm embarrassed because in addressing umsami directly I kind of forgot about you, mammal_mama ... I feel like I should go back and make a lexicon for my last couple of posts.

FWIW, I don't think it's a bad idea to approach womens rights via a religious avenue. Or anyone's rights. Muslim people like to call Islam a total way of life, and I believe it. What that means in practice is that if you can't address rights issues through the religion then the religion has failed to live up to its claim.

What I do think is that when one addresses any issue through an at-core legalistic religion they actually need to use the principles of the religion in totality, or to make a tenable case for why certain principles should not apply, not to just cherrypick and expect others to blithely follow along, or to accuse them of bigotry when they don't. Best to address issue internally, but better to address them openly externally than to address them internally badly.

While personally I would not agree that the separation of men and women during prayer goes against the teachings of Muhammad, I would agree that refusing space to a woman who wants it in the main prayer hall could be said to, barring space issues during prayers that are obligatory for men to attend and optional for women. I suppose the distinction there may be irrelevant. I definitely fall into the camp that was put off by Asra's methods on that one, and not necessarily by her stated overreaching motives.

As for the Qur'an reading as sexist ... wooooo boy, there is a can of worms. Word of god beliefs and all, beliefs about it being a message for all times ... that one gets hairy. There's really a delicate balance to be struck with the Qur'an. There is a huge danger in refusing it context -- doing so is how we get Muslims declaring that we're supposed to kill unbelievers everywhere. But there is also a danger in trying to contextualize so much that it turns it into just a vaguely inspiring history book -- something it was never intended to be. A great deal of Islamic legal scholarship is devoted to categorizing between commands to Muhammad, upon him be peace, alone, commands to people within his community, and commands that extend to other times. AFAIK commands dealing with subjects that are troubling to feminist sensibilities have never much been categorized as time-specific. Working within the scholarly traditions to make a case for why they should be would be one way of addressing these matters from within without simultaneously affronting basic beliefs about what the Qur'an is. I believe Asma Barlas, in Believing Women in Islam, attempts to do that, alongside questioning the strength of interpretations that stem from cultures that arguably had normalized at least some degree of misogyny. Now, one can find some bad reviews of her book, sure. But it's much harder to find the kind of venom that can be found against Asra Nomani, because while her interpretations and qualifications may be subject to equal questioning, she is not perceived as having been nearly so confrontational, as having violated Islamic etiquette or core beliefs, or of having attempted to use non-Muslims' bad opinions of Muslim matters to her advantage.

P.S. - As an aside, you might be interested in some of Shaykh Abdallah Adhami's lectures on women and gender in Islam. He's another one who is often quite good at making a case for women's rightfully elevated status without going against that tide of basic traditional etiquette.

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

umsami and Liquesce -- I am learning so much from listening to your discussion, ladies!

One thing I am wondering -- Liquesce, you seem to think it's not a good idea to approach women's rights through a religious avenue. I am wondering what you ladies think of Ms. Nomani's assertion that the separation of men and women for prayer and teaching goes against the teachings of Mohammed?

Ms. Nomani has been saying that in the 7th century, the birth of Islam greatly raised the status of women in what had been a very sexist culture. This seems similar to what I'd previously learned of Christianity -- that the early letters to the churches introduced radical ideas such as the idea that men needed to be careful in how they treated their wives or their own prayers would be blocked, and also the idea of complete equality in Christ.

That the Bible and Koran seem rather sexist to us today (but I still need to read the Koran, so I'm just speaking of hearsay at the moment), is attributable to the fact that they were written in very sexist times. But from my understanding, the actual movements themselves (the Muslim movement and the Christian movement) were actually quite radical in their promotion of equality between all people -- male or female, slave or free, and so on.

So, I think Ms. Nomani and some others actually see what they are doing as getting back to the real heart of Islam.

[mammal_mama]

Thanks for that link, Liquesce! I want to listen to some of Mr. Adhami's lectures when I get the chance.

So it sounds like there is more of a literalist tradition in Islam? As in, ALL of the Koran is seen as applicable to today? I really do need to read the Koran!

In Christianity, there's lots of variation. Some very conservative Christians take Scripture much more literally -- but even conservatives tend to see some of it as not applicable today.