The Abusive Leaders the American Muslim Community Deserves?

Some want the abuse to stop. How's that going for us?

In 2017, I published an article in “Muslim Matters” about a structural problem with ethics in the American Muslim community. Not much has changed since then. We continue to not only tolerate, but celebrate deeply corrupt leaders.

Facing Abuse in Community Environments (FACE) is one organization trying to mitigate this state of affairs by investigating allegations of sexual abuse by Muslim leaders. Recently, FACE has been subject to some scrutiny.  

Haytham Soliman wrote a lengthy analysis and critique of FACE in which he raises concerns about its investigative process, the qualifications of the staff, and what he views as fundamental unfairness with the whole thing. At the same time, Soliman agrees that there is a massive abuse problem of the kind that FACE exists to address. FACE, for its part, wrote an energetic rebuttal of Soliman’s article, which you should also read. 

To crudely boil down Soliman’s conclusions (but read it yourself): FACE is an organization of fake investigators who use improvised rules to star-chamber the accused—an approach that functionally punishes through shame and public humiliation. FACE, for its part, looks at itself more as a victim-centered journalism enterprise than an actual courtroom. The Hague, FACE is not—nor does it claim to be.   

It is doubtful that the “punishment” allegedly meted out by FACE means anything. FACE publishes articles on the internet. Its judgments have all the judicial authority of a blog post. It is pointless to suggest, as Soliman does, that they institute an appellate process to a system of accountability that is no more effective than throwing a shoe at your TV. 

FACE is merely highlighting massive, systemic problems in the Muslim community. Abusive clerical figures in the Muslim community are a symptom and not the disease; our institutions and leaders have enabled various forms of abuse for years. If you are a potential abuser—be the abuse financial, sexual, or manipulative of the dīn—the American Muslim community is a welcoming place. Neither FACE nor anyone else in the Muslim community makes it meaningfully less hospitable. If you build a fandom around yourself and avoid getting caught committing crimes in which prosecutors are actually interested, you have latitude. 

Anyone Can Be an Imam

Potential abusers have latitude in part because they can give themselves titles everyone accepts as real, nevermind how absurd. Precisely what, as a professional designation, is an “imam”? Who is qualified to be one? Who is a “shaykh”? An “ustadh”? Practically any smooth-talking individual with charisma and a few Arabic words up his sleeve can use whatever title he chooses (perhaps short of “mufti”) and quickly become a speaker at conferences or Muslim Student Associations. Some may even obtain professional employment as an imam at a masjid. 

Recently, women accused “Imam Osama Eisa” of abuse. I don't have any information about these allegations beyond what has been published. However, it is notable that Eisa’s prominence at Muslim events appears to have been based exclusively on the strength of his social media profile as a religious teacher. Organizations that have invited him should be embarrassed. In 2016, for example, he was given top billing at the Texas Deen Intensive with this biography:

Eisa's biography is both extraordinarily vague and weird. Who takes “time off” by going to law school? From what exactly was he taking time off? Further, his focus on “Islamists and Islamist politics” sounds more like the biography of someone who wants a Defense Department contract than a speaker on, for example, purification of the heart or hadith studies. What qualifies him to use the honorific “imam” might be the thing organizers cared about the least. 

So, is Eisa a charlatan? Maybe. We don't have the standards to judge that. Eisa probably led prayer at some time in his life, so perhaps that grants him this title? In short: organizers gave him and others a platform because his words were soothing and attractive to young people. Notably, such platforms tend to come with access to young women who may be misled by impressive oratory and lofty titles.

Masājid and Muslim nonprofits often pick speakers based on social media activity (Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, and others). It helps to be photogenic and a good orator or Quran reciter. Each speaking opportunity provides social proof that will allow for more speaking opportunities. This system is a nonsensical way to select Muslim leaders and confer religious authority. Yet here we are. 

It's also common for masājid to hire “imams” with no formal (or sometimes discernable informal) religious education at all. They don't need to show proficiency in Islamic knowledge by passing an exam. They don't need a background check. You have what it takes to be an imam if you are qualified to talk about Islam on YouTube. You can even get people to call you “shaykh” or “scholar” (whatever that is). To be fair there is a long tradition of activists and community leaders calling themselves (or getting called with no protest) “imam” or “shaykh” with no nefarious motivations. Most Muslim communities have plenty of physicians, dentists, academics, and marriage and family therapists who serve the Muslim community while using titles that confer religious authority. I only wonder if continuing this tradition is worth the confusion it creates. 

People in Muslim spaces speak with religious authority using several other meaningless and confusing honorifics in front of their names, like usthadh or sidi. Some don't use honorifics and exude authority by the sheer force of their personality and eloquent speech. The nature of religious authority in the Muslim community varies. The world of tasawwuf and “third spaces” is quite different from that of hired masjid imams, which is different from the arena of rock star-like media personalities who have built massive fandoms. We also have a tradition of charismatic and authoritarian nonprofit leaders. Muslim donors love thowing money at them with no discernable benefit.

A Muslim doctor does not get to talk about patients in crowded elevators; a Muslim lawyer usually cannot do a nikah with a client while litigating a child-custody case against her ex-husband. No fiqh rule prevents these things, but it's good policy to say these are bad ideas. Codes of conduct exist in all sorts of professions and businesses, from boat sales to marijuana distribution. Imams, shuyukh, and other Muslim leaders (with one exception I will get to) appear to have no use for such things—at least not yet. 

What is "Abuse" Anyway? 

Say, for example, a married 40-year-old imam does a nikah (not a valid marriage under state law) with a 19-year-old student, then divorces her six months later, and repeats this about six times with different teenage women over three years with varying lengths of marriage. His first wife knows, as do a few of his friends. Depending on the state, he has probably not violated any laws. He has likely not broken any rule of fiqh. But is what he did a violation of something else? Your opinion and $4.99 is not worth any more than a bag of Doritos. 

If a Muslim authority figure wants to “Islamically” marry and “divorce” young adult Muslim women on a near-industrial scale, he can do it. Neither a blog post, an underfunded nonprofit that issues reports, nor a rap song on Youtube will stop him. 

Much of what is called abuse by many is not illegal or a violation of any fiqh rule. People who call out abuse may do so based on an analysis of power dynamics, conflicts of interest, and sometimes actual or aspirational cultural norms or different definitions of what is right and wrong. In short: Muslims are often not speaking the same language when it comes to “abuse.” For example, some Muslims have a political axe to grind against plural marriages (something not unusual with imams) and to them, all instances of polygamy constitute abuse. Given that we are talking about the Muslim community, such views are unlikely to be taken seriously. Some financial practices may slide under a low bar of nonprofit finances, but can also be quite abusive. Codes of conduct can help address these ambiguities. 

Without clear rules and a way to enforce them, abusers will continue to have free reign in Muslim spaces. More people will become hurt, cynical, and discouraged about the Muslim community, their place within it, and the sincerity of its leaders.

Potential Liability for Organizations 

While much of what some consider abuse violates no laws, nonprofit organizations—including masājid—have incentives to prevent liability that comes with having no rules of conduct, poor rules of conduct, or having rules of conduct and not enforcing them.  

Muslim event organizers don’t have as clear a path to liability for speakers they invite as organizations do for employees they hire. However, as Muslim conferences have been historically friendly to potential abusers, it is easier to see how they may become liable for speakers they invite. Conferences invite speakers because they are good at YouTube and pay higher honorariums because they hope a speaker’s name will help juice ticket sales or donations from within that speaker's existing fandom. The speaker uses the conference to expand a personal brand. The speaker and the organizers are partners in misleading regular Muslims.  

It is only reasonable to expect that more scandals will happen in the Muslim community. However, it may be that resulting lawsuits won't be limited to the person who perpetrated the abuse. The people who have been complicit with this system need to start answering for this situation. That is, of course, unless they have rules and begin to self-regulate. 

To try and develop a shared understanding of what abuse is, some Muslims have endeavored to help and educate; others have done more to baffle the Muslim community.  

Serious Muslim Leaders Issue a Statement

In 2017, Muslim leaders issued several statements about Nouman Ali Khan, who was accused of spiritual abuse, breach of trust, and conduct unbecoming of a believer. The statements contained vague charges and few if any, factual predicates—an accusatory word salad. Some of them were published by individuals (or ad hoc committees) assuming quasi-judicial authority to render judgments. One writer of such a statement claimed that facts were the victims' right, that nobody else needed to know any facts. A BuzzFeed article detailed the accusations but provided only an ambiguous conclusion.

It was evident that the statements were problematic and open to a wide range of criticisms, ranging from basic mediator ethics and conflicts of interest to an over-reliance on circular reasoning, undefined rules, and bald appeals to authority.  Regardless of the fairness of the allegations, such as they were, Nouman Ali Khan continued to only grow in popularity globally. 

This Serious Muslim Leader system was short-lived. Future scandals were publicized by FACE, or by journalists. 

Facing Abuse in Community Environments (FACE) 

FACE's investigations were several cuts above the 2017 Serious Muslim Leader statements. That, of course, does not mean FACE is above criticism. 

FACE is small, underfunded, and unfortunately, polarizing for many familiar with it. The organization is unique in the American Muslim community because it investigates cases, names what it considers problem leaders, and tells detailed stories. Without apology, their work centers on alleged victims. FACE has also compiled a database of instances involving Muslims that have taken place nationally over the years.

FACE has never pretended to act without passion or prejudice as best as I can tell. FACE has sought to associate with the #metoo movement, something they have never kept a secret. As an organization, they have an understanding that abusers have the power and authority and that it's not FACE’s job to give abusers more power by getting more sides of the story. 

FACE marketed itself as the organization of #Mosquemetoo. The Muslim community is not the media and entertainment industries, where the most prominent #metoo cases originated. Imams are not movie producers or powerful politicians. Some have immense power and authority within their spheres, and many are low-paid workers hanging by a thread navigating toxic masjid politics. However, imams and people of influence in the Muslim community sometimes abuse their roles (as FACE's reports illustrate, imperfect as they may be). Indeed, it happens far more than is publicly reported, and women who have been abused still struggle to be taken seriously. FACE is filling a space nobody else would. 

In Shaykh's Clothing

In Shaykh's Clothing (ISC), founded by Danish Qasim and attorney Danya Shakfeh, is a website written to educate people about the signs of abuse. Their role is to coach, educate and provide training on the subject. The website also provides examples and some harrowing stories, drawn mainly from the world of tasawwuf. ISC is not in the business of making public accusations against people and rendering judgments. While some equate ISC and FACE, they have different outlooks and objectives. 

The ISC authors have completed a code of conduct for Islamic leadership. Of course, ISC has no authority to impose a code of conduct on anyone, but the authors have made themselves available for organizations interested in adopting them. Qasim and Shakfeh's expertise is “spiritual abuse” (a term they define). They have gone deep into a lake that only gets deeper. 

Related to this, attorney Muiz Rafiq led the creation of the “Islamic Code,” which relies heavily on the code of conduct from ISC—something he acknowledges. He also draws from his knowledge of labor and employment law.

Association of Muslim Chaplains

The Association of Muslim Chaplains (AMC) is quite different from others in the Muslim community in that it has both a code of conduct and an enforcement system. AMC was unable to answer my question of whether they have ever used this system. Chaplains, for the uninitiated, are a class of professional clerics employed by institutions like universities, hospitals, police, prisons, and the military. 

All the sectors where chaplains operate seem to have unique ethical challenges, but the code of conduct does not dig especially deep into sector-specific hazards. So, issues surrounding violence in the police and military are not addressed, for example. They do, however, address issues of spiritual abuse and topics relating to officiating marriages. 

AMC appears to be far ahead of other Muslim Associations, particularly professional masjid imams, a group that does not organize in any meaningful way. 

The Hurma Project

Founded by Ingrid Mattson (one of the co-authors of a 2017 statement about Nouman Ali Khan) and grant-funded, the Hurma Project  is supposed to educate about abuse. However, other than a website with various links (many of which are helpful if you want to dive into the subject) and a conference in 2020, it is not yet clear how this organization is a solution to much of anything. 

A Ready Solution for Nonprofits is Partial 

ISC and the Islamic Code provide perhaps the readiest mechanism for organizations that want to address spiritual abuse within their organizations. Using their advice and freely available resources, organizations can create codes of conduct and internal mechanisms for their enforcement. Muslim organizations should avail themselves of these tools. This solution will cover salaried imams and teachers already supervised by independent boards of directors. While such people should indeed be subject to codes of conduct, such efforts will have the effect of targeting the least influential people in Muslim nonprofits. It's not enough.

Regulating Only the Least Powerful

Nonprofit employer-based rulemaking only addresses a problem within organizations and not the broader communal problems I’ve addressed in this article. Many influential Muslims who are well-positioned for “spiritual abuse” are not wage earners and don’t suffer employer supervision within a Muslim institution. They may be business owners, YouTube influencers, physicians, dentists, academics, software engineers, therapists (acting outside their regulated professional roles), or others who become public figures locally or nationally. 

In many nonprofits, one person controls the organization with no system of accountability. In some organizations within the world of  tasawwuf (ISC’s specialty), for example, the head of the nonprofit is typically not questioned about anything. Board members tend to be acolytes of the person in charge and often believe the nonprofit head is likely a wali. They may see it as overstepping bounds to question the leader’s interpersonal and financial dealings. Daring to do so may result in shunning by their families and entire social circles. It’s a dynamic that perpetuates abuse and can sometimes make an entire community complicit.  

Unfortunately, we cannot do much about groups run like cults, or organizations run by an executive overseen by a board that does little more than kiss the ring. When such authoritarian or cult-leader-like nonprofit leaders want to speak outside the safe settings of their groups, or if they are independent influencers, there is an opportunity for the Muslim community to pump the brakes, just a little bit. 

For this to happen, conveners, those who organize Islamic events, need to start stepping up. 

The Conveners Code of Conduct Compact

A critical chokepoint would prevent significant abuse in the Muslim community that goes beyond organization governance. Those are conveners—any Muslim group that invites non-employees to speak at events. 

To supplement the employer-based codes of conduct, Muslim organizations that invite, khateebs, orators, Youtube influencers, comedians, camp counselors, Quran teachers, and those with influence would join an Islamic Conveners Code of Conduct Compact. This group would agree that all board members, Muslim leaders, and anyone they invite to present or lead must sign a pledge and contract to agree to both a code of conduct and an enforcement regime. 

Everyone who signs agrees they will fully cooperate with an adjudicatory body if accused of violating the code of conduct. All event organizers, nonprofits, and masājid will need to cross-check any hiring, khutbah scheduling, and speaking engagements with a public or private disciplinary record the adjudicatory body will make available to other members of the compact. 

Codes Should Go Beyond Interpersonal Abuse and Financial Abuse

ISC's Code of Conduct has spiritual and financial abuse covered, which is a good start. Bad conduct, however, takes many forms. As a general matter, the code of conduct for an Islamic organization should be about protection against misleading or manipulative and fraudulent practices, and include Islamic norms and behavior. 

Consumer Protection with Honorifics 

Organizers of Muslim events should validate the qualifications of speakers and hires and do a background search, and the compact can help. However, honorifics are actively used in the Muslim community to confuse people by counterfeiting religious authority. Muslim organizations should not allow this to happen. A compact should have minimum standards for what terms like “shaykh” and “imam” mean and abolish meaningless or confusing words that blow much smoke but don't add value to attendees. 

Political Violations  

Currently, some Imams could get fired and banned from speaking at conferences fast if they start sounding like Zionists, support Donald Trump, or claim the Muslim ban is in line with the Shari'a. These people are also unlikely to be invited to speak at many Islamic conferences. There should be a baseline understanding of what is or is not acceptable that goes beyond what is merely unpopular at the time or unfairly considers the relative prestige or power of the individual. Some muslim leaders can pinch-hit for Zionism and support Trump's Muslim ban without worrying about reprocussions of any kind. If political expressions can be code of conduct violations, such rules should be principled and fairly applied by other Muslim leaders and organizations. 

Acts and Statements of Kufr, Shirk, Promoting Fahisha, Disrespecting Islam 

In 2018 media personality Wajahat Ali was disinvited from the ISNA Convention. He was a target of Palestinian activists for violating the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement by participating in the Muslim Leadership Initiative in 2014. He also wrote things Muslims interpreted as statements of disbelief. However, ISNA kept inviting him and other MLI participants for a few years after 2014 and various controversial things he did in the media, so those were not the reasons ISNA disinvited him. 

 The real reason was the trouble Ali’s presence was causing began to outweigh the value of having Ali as a speaker. ISNA regularly invites Zionists who oppose BDS, people in shady national security professions, representatives of governments that participate in the oppression of Muslims, people who promote Muslims doing things prohibited in Islam, and folks who have regularly said disrespectful things about Islam. Many people routinely invited to Islamic gatherings have said and done things far worse than Ali ever did (I can share examples, but it would be needlessly gross). Organizers of Islamic events do not proactively screen for much of anything when they recruit speakers, authors or entertainers. Islamic institutions frequently hang their hats on Islamic norms when it suits them.  Muslim organizations should have standards for what kinds of things are unacceptable.  Just inviting people who can draw a crowd and only discard them when they outlived their usefulness is not a principled way to conduct community events.  

If you are a Muslim organization and want to have a code of conduct, you should have some standards on how Muslim speakers speak about Allah, the prophets, the angels, the Quran, Hadith, the sahabah, and so forth. It would be odd to have a code of conduct that prevents technically allowable things in fiqh, like doing a nikah with a student before grading her paper, but allows for shirk. For contracts with public-facing employees and executives, a morality clause in contracts is often standard. Those who write codes of conduct and contracts can define what this means with precision.  

How to Get Started 

Danya Shekfeh and Danish Qasim of ISC have built an expertise on this issue and have constructed a sample code of conduct. That is a great starting point, and their voices should be part of the process. Another step is to create a standard contract, including an enforceable arbitration provision for all speakers. Everyone who signs the contract would agree to cooperate with investigations and be subject to fines and other sanctions if they violate published rules. 

A system like this won't prevent internet influencers, cult-leaders, and authoritarian nonprofit leaders from creating events and exploiting and abusing people within their ecosystems. However, it will mean that our respected institutions and event organizers within the Muslim community won't be complicit in the next scandal.