On Eid morning, I was distributing New Trend at the ISB, located on Baltimore’s West side. It is Baltimore’s largest and possibly most “controlled” mosque. The mood of the mosque-goers was upbeat, and nearly everyone I approached took the NT (unlike some mosques, where worshippers run away from a sista trying to hand them of a copy of the anti-imperialist Islamic paper). I was more than halfway into the distribution when a balding gent in grey shalwar-kameez approached me. He was unremarkable in appearance, somewhat slender (lacking the characteristic middle class Paki pot belly), clean-shaven, and bespectacled.
“What is this, sister?” he asked rhetorically.
I gave him my standard, This-is-an-Islamic-paper, it-talks-about-the-issues-affecting-the-Muslim-world speal. I expected him to take the NT and walk away, but instead he faced me with a dark look on his face.
“You need permission to distribute anything here,” he said.
“Really?” I breathed, surprised. “Is this something new? We have always distributed our newsletter here and it was never a problem.”
What I told him was nothing short of the truth. Spineless mosque staffers had initially threatened to call the cops on the NT editor as he stood distributing the vanguard Islamic paper. He told them to go ahead, please do. After that, the mosque administration had stopped harassing him and other volunteers when they distributed the NT.
“Yes, we have a new policy in place as of last year. Everything has to be approved by the board,” he said, his slight Paki accent emerging. “We had to do this because we were getting a lot of complaints about literature which was unIslamic or anti-American. Law enforcement was also concerned.”
“I see,” I said. “Well, I can certainly understand you have a policy. Can you please look this over, and make sure it’s not unIslamic,” I proffered a copy of the NT to him.
He said, “No, I can’t. It has to go before the board.”
“Well you’re on the board, right?”
Yes, but this is not a dictatorship. I can’t simply okay it without consulting the other members of the board.”
“Well, what if there is no time to consult the other members of the board?” I asked. “This is the Eid prayer. Time is of the essence.” I was getting irritated because people were walking by, without receiving information I thought invaluable, while Mr. Unremarkable waylaid me.
“This is the policy,” he was adamant, as only a toady can be.
“Look I’m a visitor. I’m don’t usually come here, and I wasn’t aware of the new policy, because, as I said, in the past there was never any problem with distributing Islamic literature. I’m asking you to please check it, and okay it,” I was clutching at straws.
“As I said it’s not a dictatorship,” he said.
“Okay, I understand you have a policy. Excuse me while I....” I headed toward the road, but it seemed to concern him that I was going to distribute the NTs even there.
“This is private property. You need permission to distribute anything here.”
“The masjid belongs to Allah,” I said.
“Let’s not go there,” he said.
“Why not go there?” I countered. “Do you see anyone else talking about these issues?” I indicated the NT articles on Afghanistan and Iraq. That is why I’m distributing this paper. No one else is talking about it.” Despite the residual Ramadan sabr, exasperation was setting in.
“We do talk about the issues,” he said. “I talk about the issues. In fact I’ll be on NPR tonight, talking about anti-terrorism.”
NPR. This joker was going to be on airwaves where independent-minded Muslim leaders were persona non grata. I relinquished all hope of him “permitting” a NT distribution.
“Really?” I feigned interest. “What’s your name? I asked.
“I’m ---,” he said proudly.
“I’ll make it a point to listen. And I understand you have a policy. I won’t be distributing anything on your property,” I told him. “Thank you for standing up for Haq. I hope you do great on NPR tonight,” I said, my voice heavy with sarcasm.
I’d been retreating toward the property line all the while, and he’d followed me, as if to intimidate, with the same dark look on his face. When I got to the road, I immediately resumed distribution of the NT, and he walked off, pretending to check the mailbox. I found that this was actually a much more effective vantage point from which to hand out papers, eliminating duplicate copies of the paper going to the same family, and in fact, conferring a degree of officiousness on the distributor, as I greeted the brothers and sisters just outside the mosque entrance. Nearly all the cars exiting the mosque took the NT, some of them honking their horns to get my attention if I missed them.
The interlude raised a number of issues:
1) The mosque administration seems more concerned with the sensitivities of law enforcement, than either the genocide being enacted upon the Muslim world, or, the interests of its congregation. Additionally, intrusion of law enforcement into mosques may violate the U.S.’s own laws mandating strict Separation of Church and State (or Mosque and State, in this case).
2) The mosque appears to forfeit First Amendment Freedoms in disallowing the distribution of items with the tenuous label of “anti-American” (ie, which dare question U.S. foreign policy). So, Muslims have fewer rights to speak out on issues at their own mosque than non-Muslim Americans who criticize U.S. foreign policy (whether at a religious institution or elsewhere). On the other hand, Madeleine Albright, instrumental in the mass extermination of Iraqi children, was infamously permitted to use this very mosque, the ISB, as a mouthpiece. Similarly, U.S. politicians are welcome to canvass there, and distribution of literature, such as that disseminated after Eid salat, entitled “Islam on Capitol Hill presents Jummah Prayer on Capitol Hill,” is permitted. So, only pro-government views—and not others—may be heard at the mosque, a clear contradiction of democratic (and Muslim) ideals.
3) The extent of government control of this mosque is troubling. Surveillance cameras, reportedly supplied by DHS, are in place, on and around the property, ostensibly for the protection of the mosque. Exactly who has access to the surveillance garnered by the cameras is unclear. If the property is under surveillance, are the khutbas also approved, monitored, or otherwise scrutinized by the authorities, as, for example, under the Egyptian or Saudi dictatorships? If so, would this not constitute a clear violation of First Amendment freedoms?
