The election of Dr. Hany Ammar as president was the most important problem for the youth.  “This is why I stopped going to the mosque,” one college-aged Muslima announced.  “We have a mullah just like him at the Islamic Center and once he was elected he cut out all the youth activities,” said Amna Hasan, the only high school student in the audience.  She continued by saying, “Going to mosque to watch movies and talk about the issues facing us like dating, wearing hijab and socializing with non-Muslims was important to us.  What are we supposed to think when that is taken away?”

The older generation took issue with the leaders at the Morgantown mosque.  A Muslim father questioned the initial dialogue, saying, “If Hazem Bata felt so strongly about Hany Ammar, why didn’t he call meetings protesting the election?”  Another Muslim elder said, “A silent activism never works.  As Muslims living in the post-9/11 world we strive to correct the false stereotypes associated with Muslims.  Why did it take Asra’s protests for the mosque in Morgantown to open their doors to the rest of the community?”

When asked what the audience thought about the Yusuf Estes confrontation and the MSA’s failure to have a question and answer session most were in support of Asra.  “I think the lack of Muslims in attendance speaks to what we think of Yusuf Estes,” said one Muslim parent.  “And if that girl thinks being smacked in the head with a newspaper doesn’t hurt she’s welcome to visit my house,” he added.

While most supported the heart of Nomani’s ideas, not all of her actions were supported by those I spoke with.  Most felt Asra was out of line when she visited the “progressive mosque” and demanded to pray along side the men.  “She’s a guest in their mosque, she has no right to be disrespectful regardless of how valid her point is,” said a grandmother.  When someone supported the claim that Asra’s actions were self promoting and used to increase her book sales, a debate broke out between “generations” over how to promote change.  One Muslim girl said, “Without Asra’s action’s we wouldn’t be here trying to fix our community.”

As the dialogue came to a close I asked for final thoughts on Brittany Huckabee’s film.  When asked if the film was positive for the Muslim community, everyone raised their hand.  One mother said that the documentary was a step in the right direction to move on from the stereotypes associated with 9/11.  “Since 9/11 the only issue associated with Muslims is terrorism.  Now people have an inside look of REAL issues we struggle with on a day to day basis.”  When asked to see a show of hands that wanted more documentaries and films like this one, not a single hand was left down.  “The only way we are going to make progress is if we bring these issues to the forefront.  Asra’s tactics may have been at times out of line but she got people talking and taking action,” a former leader in the Muslim community said.

Chris Morrow is a screenwriter based in Texas.

As an eleven year old, I don’t understand why something like this causes such an uproar.  It seems like it shouldn’t matter. From watching the program, I don’t think that a woman praying next to a man would change or worsen the experience when at service.

As some of you may know, Asra was an amazing reporter for the Wall Street Journal for fifteen years.  And she worked alongside a very honorable man named Daniel Pearl, a man who was kidnapped by Muslim extremists and killed.  The footage of him being killed was sent to the U.S to watch.  Asra was one of the last to see him and saw him the day he was kidnapped.  It is a very sad and tragic story.

She now has also written two books and has gone on at least one book tour.  When on this tour, she met some very supportive and unsupportive people.  At one stage of the tour, Asra went into a mosque and sat next to some of the men there.  Some people asked her what she was doing, and she simply stated that she was praying.  After talking a while they threatened to get men to pick her up and take her outside.  Finally, they gated off that section and brought other women over there.

After the service she talked to some members, among many things a woman said ‘”You should be ashamed of yourself!”  Asra replied by saying, “ I pray for you.”  The woman said, “I do not need your prayers.”  I find this to be quite rude.

I have learned a lot from Asra and THE MOSQUE IN MORGANTOWN, and I would recommend it to people of all ages.  To me, Asra is an amazingly kind and wholesome person who is definitely one of my heroes.  I feel like I have met her through the documentary and that is truly an honor.

I would like to leave you with one final but very important thought about my faith.  While Catholics may get to sing, sit, and celebrate together, we are still not fully together.  I don’t mean to question anyone’s faith, but if Asra can try and get woman to have a higher place in her religion, why do so many Catholics believe that women can’t be priests or other higher members of the church?

After all, I believe good people all go to heaven.  Maybe we need someone as brave and courageous as Asra to lead us.  While Asra is still fighting, I pray she will succeed.  My question is, why can’t we all be equal?  And, yes, I am a boy.

Dylan Chambers is an 11-year-old aspiring writer living in the Cincinnati area.

Muslims regard the Qur’an as the last divine Speech revealed by God.  Unlike previous books sent by God, the Qur’an was not revealed to any specific group of people, culture or religion.  It came with a message that is universal and to an audience that comprises all of humanity.  The Qur’an does not only address those who believe in it as God’s Word, but also addresses those who disbelieve in it.  By addressing Christians and Jews as “People of the Book,” the Qur’an recognizes that there are other religious communities that have previously received divine guidance.  Muslims’ identification of Christians and Jews is hinged upon their recognition of the divine truth that was sent to their messengers.

A consistent feature of Quranic interpretation throughout the last fifteen hundred years of Islamic history has been its multiplicity of interpretations.  Even the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), who learned Islam directly from the Prophet, who received divine guidance, understood the Qur’an in different ways.  Scholars have made no attempt to limit or restrict the number of interpretations that could exist.  Every human being will bring his/her own background to his/her reading of the Qur’an.  Muslim or non-Muslim, poor or rich, male or female, child or adult, black or white, every human being will read the Qur’an based upon his or her beliefs, education, conditioning, culture and a variety of other factors.  Further, as a message that addresses all of humanity, the Quran allows room for a myriad of readings, as long as they do not conflict the Qur’an’s main principles.  It is therefore impossible to impose a single authoritative reading upon the Qur’an without violating the Qur’an’s own description of itself as universal and for all people.

Despite the interpretative pluralism that exists, why have some interpretations of the Qur’an gained greater acceptability or recognition by the community of Muslim believers?  If every human being is free to understand the Qur’an as he/she wishes, then what conditions govern the interpretive process so that it does not become an arbitrary and subjective process?

First, an important distinction needs to be made between private or personal interpretations of the Quran and scholarly interpretations of the Quran that become part of the scholarly interpretive or exegetical discourse.  While human beings will naturally bring their own understanding to their reading of any text, this does not give them the authority to impose their understanding of the Quran upon the entire Muslim community.  Moreover, it does not give them the authority to render their personal interpretation as equal to or just as valid as those interpretations that are governed by standard hermeneutical principles — principles that have characterized the exegetical tradition of the Quran from the onset of Islamic history until the current century.  It is one thing for an individual to understand any particular verse of the Quran in a certain way and it is an entirely different matter for an individual to engage the interpretive scholarly discourse, deduce a specific interpretation according to established hermeneutics, put forth this interpretation as one possibility among many, and expect it to be considered with any merit or seriousness by the scholarly community.  The difference between the former and the latter boils down to the qualifications of the specific interpreter and the interpretive process he/she follows.

Second, the interpretive process is governed by important principles, on the basis of which the Qur’an then rejects or accepts a single interpretation.  Any interpretation that contradicts the main Quranic principles will be rejected.  These principles, among others, are:

1)    There is a consensus among the scholars throughout the history of the Ummah that interpreting the Qur’an through the Qur’an is the most accepted method of interpretation.  This requires a comprehensive reading of the Qur’an in every meaning.  The Qur’an criticizes a reading that is decontextualized and selective. As Asma Barlas writes in Believing Women in Islam, the Qur’an emphasizes reading it holistically, hence intratextually, which also emerges from its praise for those who say: We believe in the book; the whole of it is from our Lord” (Quran 3:7).

2)    Interpreting the Qur’an through its ultimate objectives. As Taha J. Alwani notes, these objectives are 1) Tawhid or man’s belief in the oneness of God; 2) Purification of man’s soul; and 3) Imran, or the development of human civilization.

3)    Understanding the grammatical, syntactical and etymological nuances of the Arabic language.  God revealed the Qur’an in the Arabic language for a reason, a reason that is perhaps beyond the grasp of human understanding.  As God says in verse 12:2, “We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.”  This does not mean the Qur’an privileges Arabic-speaking peoples or that it exclusively addresses the Arabic-speaking tribes that existed at the time.  Simply, God chose this language to be the tongue of the Qur’an to fulfill His divine plan for humanity.

The Qur’an’s divine language is different than the human language of Arabic.  In early Islamic history, Muslims understood that Arabic as a divine language is different than Arabic as a human language.  The human language is usually restricted and influenced by the culture, the customs and the regional history and traditions of the Arabs.  The language of the Qur’an, on the other hand, is a divine language and not subject to the regional, cultural and historical influences which inevitably impose themselves upon the evolution of human languages.  It is no coincidence, therefore, that the most prominent scholars of the Arabic language, who are regarded as founders of the major linguistic sciences, were not Arabs.  They established those linguistic sciences based upon the Quranic language, which is divine in its terminology and meaning.  There is a complete consensus that a mastery of the Arabic sciences (grammar, lexicology, poetry, etc.) is a necessary requirement for interpreters of the Qur’an — those interpreters who are engaging the scholarly discourse and putting forth their interpretations as one possibility among many others.

Third, the Qur’an, as divine Speech, is the final arbitrator of all interpretations.  The Qur’an itself hands down the final verdict on any single interpretation.  For Muslims, God’s promise to protect the Quran means that it is immune and unsusceptible to interpretations that violate its essence or explicit meanings.  As clear guidance with an unambiguous message, the Quran — through its words — ultimately stands as evidence of interpretations that best reflect its true meaning.  The Quran becomes the criterion by which an interpretation is then accepted or rejected.  As God says in verse 13:17, “…This way does God set forth the parable of truth and falsehood: for, as far as the scum is concerned, it passes away as [does all] dross; but that which is of benefit to man abides on earth. In this way does God set forth the parables.”

Finally, when it comes to changing an aspect of an established Islamic ritual or arriving at a new interpretation that changes an aspect of an obligatory ritual, such interpretations are governed by strict conditions.  When it comes to reinterpreting the conditions in which prayer is to be performed, one must take into consideration: 1) Quranic verses that ordain how, when or where prayer is to be performed, 2) Prophetic sayings or practices that establish how, when or where prayer is to be performed, 3) the objective of prayer based on textual evidence, 4) the historical practice of the first community of believers, and 5) scholarly interpretations.

Prayer is the cornerstone of Islam.  Every movement connected to the ritual prayer, the salat, reflects its objectives.  As in all the other acts of devotion, salat is not an end in itself. It is about reviving one’s connection to God, reminding one of his/her purpose in life and his/her ultimate destination and instilling peace and tranquility in one’s soul.  The specificities of prayer have been explicitly prescribed in the Qur’an and Prophetic tradition.  The steps one must take to prepare one’s self for prayer, the purity of the place where one prays, the condition of the clothes one wears for prayer, etc. have all been described by our beloved Prophet (pbuh) — the source of divine guidance.  It is not up to any human being to change any aspect of divinely prescribed rituals.  It is these divine prescriptions that give Islam its unique identity.

Zainab Alwani received her Ph.D. in Islamic Sciences from the International Islamic University in Malaysia. She is currently the Program Director and an Adjunct Professor of Arabic Language Studies at Northern Virginia Community College. She also teaches Arabic Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and is a professor at a number of consortium institutions including Wesley Theological Seminary, the Washington National Cathedral and Cordoba University.

Dr. Alwani has published many scholarly articles, most notably “Al Ghazali and His Methodology,” “Aisha’s ‘Istidrakat’ Commentaries” and “Methodological Premises: Reclaiming a Lost Legacy.” She is also co-author of several books, including Change From Within: Diverse Perspectives on Domestic Violence in Muslim Communities, What Islam Says about Domestic Violence and Perspectives: Arabic Language and Culture in Film.

An example of this is when, in the film, Nomani states that domestics violence is a major problem in the community.  This plays up to the stereotype that Muslim men treat their wives badly.  What is this based on?  Where’s her proof that Muslim men in America are beating their wives at a greater clip than men of other religions or no religion.  There is no evidence whatsoever.  Brittany Huckabee, the director, does nothing to challenge Nomani’s assertion.  I wonder if a Muslim director would have.

Nomani is a person who has been published in many different leading newspapers and interviewed on popular news shows.  Now she is being featured in this documentary.  Does anyone think she would get that extensive publicity had she challenged stereotypes about Muslims, as opposed to reinforcing them?  She is being used by a media that is hostile to us and our society.

I have read many articles about Nomani and by her.  Most Muslims are not upset by what she stands for.  They are upset as to how she went about it.  If she thinks there are issues in the Muslim community, shouldn’t she have written about it in Islamic publications?  That would make sense.  Instead, she calls CNN and writes about her cause in non-Muslim newspapers.  She should have understood that this would have led to a hostile response.  If it is a Muslim problem, why involve outsiders?  It’s our community.  Let us talk about it and decide for ourselves what is right or not right without outside interference.  Change should come from within and not feel like it is being imposed by non-Muslims.

Also, I feel many people don’t like Nomani because she is trying to reform Islam when she has no crediblity within the community.  This is a person who, I guess during her tantric sex phase, had a child out of wedlock.  She wasn’t living the Muslim lifestyle when she was doing this.  If you are going to preach a religion, a person should at least try to live a lifestyle acceptable to that religion.  It’s sort of like Bristol Palin teaching abstinence.

I wonder if that experience is at the heart of Nomani’s struggle.  Is this whole feminist Muslim thing a way of getting back at the man who knocked her up and left her?  What she needs to understand is that, if he was half a Muslim man, he would have done the honorable act of marrying her.  In Islam, it is a man’s duty to take care of his family.  It is not a choice.

As far as the documentary goes, it was well done.  I was expecting a hatchet job of the Morgantown Muslim community.  Instead, I felt I got a fair portrayal of the situation.  I came away thinking the same thing that many Muslims before have expressed about Nomani.  I have nothing against her cause.  It’s the person.

Suhail Qureshi is a hijack survivor and a Muslim living in Houston, TX. His first book, In the Name of Democracy, tentatively scheduled for release in December 2009, tells the true story of his family’s ordeal on PIA Flight PK326.

But can these grievances be addressed best through fresher interpretation of Islam’s primary sources or through external imported paradigms?  Are some of the diverse cultural practices of Muslims inconsistent with normative Islamic teachings?  If so, how can we disconnect between normative Islam and anti-Islamic teachings and practices, cultural or otherwise, such as the alleged connection between Islam and indiscriminate violence or “oppression” of women?  Or are the problems of violence and women’s oppression rooted in normative Islam itself and as such, it is Islam which requires fundamental re-formation and major deep-rooted changes?  Can desired and often legitimate change be effected only through radical revolutionary means and overbearing imposition that may defeat its very objectives?  Can failure on that level contribute to a more ambitious goal of “changing the world”?

At the heart of these classical/modern questions is the vital issue of who understands and interprets Islam and how.  From one perspective, every Muslim is entitled to understand the broad message of Islam through its universally accepted primary sources, namely the Qur’an and authentic Hadeeth of the Prophet of Islam [peace be upon him].  After all, such revelatory sources are not the monopoly of any individual, institution or generation.  Rather, they address believers, and in many instances humanity at large, on these core issues of faith in a direct and unimpeded way.  No “rocket science” is needed to understand what the Qur’an teaches about the oneness of God (Allah in Arabic), God’s immutable moral guidance such as “The Golden Rule,” human trusteeship [or stewardship] on earth or human’s accountability for his/her deeds

Does that apply as well to making challenging juridical interpretations of Islamic Law?  Is a student who successfully completed “Law 101” qualified enough to give a verdict in a highly controversial constitutional law issue or sit on the Supreme Court?  On such level of complexity, we tend to show respect for specialization and require minimum qualifications.  A serious question here is this: should that minimum competence be disregarded when it comes to juridical interpretations of Islamic Law.?

Of course, any person  is free to agree or disagree with any or all qualified juridical interpretations, to choose one over the other or even reject faith altogether.  But is it legitimate, without minimum qualifications and sound juridical reasoning, to make claims about what “Islam says or does not say” based on one’s own whim and to pressure others into accepting his/her “made-to-order” Islam?

Even when qualified jurists interpret primary sources, however similar or different their conclusion may be, they are bound by certain rules and methodologies.  In this essay, I have chosen only a few key rules and applied them to a specific, but representative allegation that is made in this documentary (and in other media as well): that it is “explicitly written” in the Qur’an [5:51] that Muslims should not befriend Jews and Christians, with the conclusion that the Qur’an can not be God’s verbatim revelation.  There are multiple errors in this common allegation, all rooted in violation of proper universal methodology of interpretation including the following:

IN THE FILM:
Asra Nomani on Literalism

1.    Dependence on erroneous translations of the Qur’an such as rendering the original Qur’anic Arabic term (Awliyaa’) in 5:51 into “friends.”  Awliyaa’ means, among others: overlords, guardians, protectors or allies.  A related error is to understand the terms “Jews” and “Christians” as inclusive of all Jews and Christians for all time to come, rather than to only a group of them who engaged in hostilities as explained above and as will be further confirmed in point 4 below.

2.    Disregarding the historical and textual contexts of the verse(s).  For example, the prohibition of alliance (not friendship) with “Jews and Christians” in 5:51 applies only to those who were mocking at the Muslim faith [5:60-61] and who are “racing each other in sin and aggression” [5:65].  Other verses like 5:51, if studied carefully and contextually, disprove the claimed sweeping generalizations commonly attached to them as stated in the documentary.  The same generalization error applies to verses in the Qur’an that sanction Muslims’ right to defend themselves in response to aggression and severe oppression [e.g., 2:190-194 and 9:5].  More detailed analysis of many such battlefield-related verses can be found in my paper “Muslim and Non-Muslim Relations” on IslamOnline.net.

3.    Careless and highly opinionated interpretations by those who are not grounded enough in the process of juridical interpretations.  Review of traditional interpretations or initiating new ones by a qualified scholar(s) in response to modernity is encouraged through Islam’s internal mechanism of Ijtihaad and its methodology.  Any new Ijtihad is subject to scholarly debate as no single authority has the right to impose one uniform interpretation to the exclusion of other legitimate ones.  However, such interpretations must be rooted in the primary sources of Islam, consistent with their texts and in line with the supreme objectives of Shari`ah; safeguarding faith, life, mind, family, human dignity, justice and property rights.  Neither tampering with the essential and stable aspects of the Law nor elevating a debatable opinion to a permanent edict is in line with serious scholarship.  Many Muslim scholars hold the view that friendship with peacefully co-existing peoples of other faith communities is not forbidden.

4.    Disregarding other verses in the Qur’an which contradict the “no friendship” claim.  A Muslim male who is lawfully married to a Jewish or Christian wife [as sanctioned in 5:5] is required to love her as a wife irrespective of her religion [as in 30:21].  Surely, normative marital relationship is more intimate than “friendship.”  More general and profound are verses 8 and 9 in Chapter 60, where it is clearly stated that those (non-Muslim) who refrain from fighting Muslims or drive them out of their homes are entitled to be treated in kindness respect and justice.  A detailed analysis of these key but least quoted verses is found in the article cited above.  Similar misunderstanding of some verses dealing with women issues can be found at www.jannah.org.

In conclusion, there are considerable problems with the selective and “cut-and-paste” approach to the scriptures, Muslim and otherwise.  Avoiding such flaws is the first step in dealing objectively, truthfully and wisely with the many problems facing Muslims everywhere, and maybe others as well.

Dr. Jamal Badawi is Professor Emeritus at St. Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, where he served as Professor of both Management and Religious Studies. During its May 2008 Convocation, Saint Mary’s University granted him an Honorary Doctorate of Civil law in recognition of his promotion of “ a better understanding of Islam” and contribution “to civil society around the world.”

Dr. Badawi completed his undergraduate studies in Cairo, Egypt and his Masters and Ph.D. degrees at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. He is the author of several works on Islam, including books, chapters in books and articles. He is a member of The Islamic Juridical (Fiqh) Council of North America, The European Council of Fatwa and Research and the International Union of Muslim Scholars. He has been serving as a volunteer Imam of the local Muslim community in the Halifax Regional Municipality since 1970.

Indeed this documentary is a hopeful narrative, showing that candor, civility and constructive engagement can significantly alter soul-crushing bureaucracies for the better.  This can happen in even the midst of grave disagreements over the course to be taken by organizational entities from venerable organizational cultures such as a mosque, a church, a synagogue, a temple, a tribe, a state, a nation, or an international body like the European Union or the United Nations.

What is equally apparent, and sadder, is that the social change agents among us, like Asra Nomani — progressive feminist American-Muslim denizen and globe-trotting world citizen, journalist  and professor — pay a high personal price for raising consciousness and advocating improvements that require any entrenched organization to move beyond its comfort range maintaining the status quo.

One perspective on characteristic strengths of any governed group that allow it to achieve historical longevity and fruitfulness (as opposed to entropy) is that the particular group or religion — Judaism, for example — keeps alive within it over considerable time, as healthy variants, three very different but vital sub-groups: traditional (orthodox) , moderate (conservative)and progressive (reform).

Each of these groups preserves faith and ensure that the faith doesn’t fall so far into extremes of error that it dies out without balance and correction.

This forthright documentary chronicles the clash between concerted, articulated, bold, reformative social change agency as stimulated by Nomani, and the protective defensiveness of a religion under hostile world critique, Islam.  It’s a clash that comes to life in a fairly reactionary way in the Morgantown, WV, mosque.  At times, the mosque is transcendent, and, at other times, it is an uneasy amalgam of orthodox, conservative, and reform-minded Muslims and their families.  The end result is a very healthy examination of the cultural evolution of a mosque and its people.

The pace of forward thinking, social justice and positive change may not satisfy the movers and shakers, who urge us to the light in every generation, and press us forward, often at great cost to themselves and their loved ones.

Still, this terrific documentary allows us listen to the diverse voices of Muslims who love God, their precious faith’s tradition, and also their sisters and brothers.  These voices reveal that first at home, and now in the greater community of the nation and the world, the activist Asra Nomani has succeeded in waking up sleepers in a misogynistic medieval dream to the need to restore to Islam its original feminism.

Aminah Yaquin Carroll, raised in Massachusetts and a former long-term New Yorker, now lives on a small farm in West Virginia and works as a writer. She has a BA in Religious Studies from Fordham University, an MPA from CUNY Baruch and is a fellow of the national Institute for Educational Leadership. She has worked in human services and public program development for more than 30 years and has been active in interfaith work for decades. She is a life-long Red Sox fan and a practicing Muslim.

“I think Eldred Sasserine is the devil.  I see it in his eyes.”

A friend whispered those words to my mother more than twenty years ago, and she says they still send a chill down her spine.

Eldred Sasserine was a retired cattle rancher from Oklahoma who had made it his mission to depose the new minister in our small-town Colorado church.  Sasserine and his partisans said that Glenn Greenwell wasn’t preaching enough hellfire-and-brimstone, staples of Sunday sermons before he arrived.  Moreover, he was “fellowshipping” with other Christians in town, flouting the received truth that our denomination stood alone on the path to heaven.  I remember the day Glenn submitted his resignation.

I was about ten years old.  My family attended the local Church of Christ on Sunday mornings, Sunday nights and Wednesday nights, so what happened there left a deep impression on me.  Looking back, I realize I was seeing the clash between tradition and modernity that plays out in so many religious communities, written small among the red canvas pews of our little brick church next to a horse stable.

Years later, the conflict seeped back into my mind when I heard about another clash in another religious community.  This one was in a mosque in West Virginia.

A colleague told me about an old friend who had just returned to her hometown mosque and found it had been taken over by a conservative clique — extremists, she called them.  These men were excluding women and families from the mosque, and their sermons lashed out against the West and non-believers.  It all sounded familiar.  I wondered, were these Muslims really any more exotic — or dangerous — than the Oklahoma cattle rancher who wanted to control my childhood church?

After all, I grew up to a soundtrack of sermons that painted mainstream American culture as an evil, corrupting force.  We were to be “in this world, but not of it.”  The devil was out there tempting us at every turn, not least of which in the rock music I’d already learned to love. School dances, evolution, bikini swimsuits and television shows like Cheers and The Golden Girls were also his domain.

And at our church, too, women could not hold leadership positions.  My mother lost a bid to teach our Sunday school class because women were not permitted to instruct a “baptized man,” even if that man happened to be a ten-year-old boy.

Most sermons before Glenn arrived focused on the difficulty of achieving salvation.  People of other faiths — and Christians of other denominations — were seen as irredeemable sinners. As my brother overheard a family friend telling my grandfather in the car, “Clarence, I’m concerned for your soul.”  The problem: our grandparents were Baptists.  My brother remembers crying because Grandmom and Granddad were going to hell.

When he was hired as preacher at the age of 31, Glenn Greenwell tried to change the culture in the church, to create a religious narrative more useful to daily life.  He entertained us with stories and tied them back to scripture.  He encouraged us to ask questions.  He organized breakfast meetings with other local pastors.  He emphasized grace over condemnation, and he said we were not the only ones who would be saved.  But the hold of tradition was strong, and Eldred Sasserine’s complaints fell on receptive ears.

Half the church remained neutral in the conflict.  The other half was almost equally divided between the two factions. My mother says Glenn resigned to save the congregation from splitting.  But right after his departure, Sasserine and his partisans split anyway and the church was left adrift.  Our family moved away a couple of years later.

My brother doesn’t remember much of that.  As he puts it, “Long car ride; you get there and it’s all old-lady perfume and ‘you’re going hell,’ so I just tuned it out.  I went to sleep.”

I did my share of sleeping in church, too.  But I couldn’t quite tune it out.  A desire to explore that divide between tradition and modernity animated my aspirations as a documentary filmmaker, and eventually led me to begin filming in Morgantown, West Virginia in 2004.

What I found there was a lot of similarities — and some differences, too.  In Morgantown, as in Colorado, the struggle hinged on competing notions of scripture as seen through the lens of cultural tradition, underlined by an old-fashioned power struggle.  In Colorado, the divide was largely on generational and educational lines.  In Morgantown, it came down to those who sought to forge a distinctly American Muslim identity versus those who preferred to cling to the practices of their home countries.

And I can’t ignore an obvious difference: Islam is now fraught with heavy political baggage.  After 9/11, language about the evils of American culture and the irredeemability of non-believers took on a much more sinister cast.  And indeed certain supposedly traditional beliefs have been harnessed to violent political ends.  But ultimately I don’t believe the sermons given at the mosque in Morgantown represent anything more or less dangerous than those I heard in my church.  They reflect the universal fare of conservative religion.

In Morgantown the mosque didn’t split.  Moderates and progressives in the community pushed back, until the mosque finally began to grow into a more inclusive institution.

Tradition is a force of nature.  It will always serve as a counterweight to the destabilizing push of modernity.  One can argue that its adherents in Morgantown were rigid or small-minded, but they were not evil.  And neither, I suspect, was Eldred Sasserine.

Brittany Huckabee is an independent filmmaker and the director of THE MOSQUE IN MORGANTOWN.

Before posting here, please check to see if your comment might better serve to further the conversation on an existing topic or essay.

Asra also reports that on Nov. 7, 2003, the board of the mosque in Morgantown voted 4-1 to make the front door and main hall “solely” for the use of men (her father was the lone dissenting vote). Later, on June 3, 2004, the Associated Press ran a story reporting that the mosque’s Executive Committee had voted to allow women in the front door and the main hall. According to Asra, this was the first public statement of this policy.

Are such assurances about the absence of policies prohibiting women’s participation and access at odds with reality in the Morgantown mosque and elsewhere? What other gaps exist between rhetoric and reality in our religious communities?