The American Muslim community has struggled to hold accountable Imams who abuse their position of authority. As it currently stands, an organization named Facing Abuse in Community Environments, known as “FACE,” has consistently tried to fill this gap by creating a system for substantiating allegations of abuse. In doing so, FACE affirmed that its process is objective and fair to all parties involved.
The story behind FACE was written about many times before. In brief, FACE’s executive director Alia Salem founded the organization as a reaction to “patterns of sexual abuse” in the Muslim community without any “specific mechanism to call out such abuses,” investigate them, and/or prevent them from happening to others. However, as I explain below, FACE’s process includes inherently unjust elements, causing it to be profoundly biased against the accused.
I reached out to Alia early this year and asked her for an interview for this article. Even though she knew of my skeptical outlook regarding FACE’s process, she graciously agreed to be interviewed. Twice. She also connected me with Saud Inam, a board member of FACE at the time of our interview. Moreover, I interviewed several Imams, some of whom support FACE, and spoke with two individuals who are/were subject to FACE’s investigation. In speaking with all these individuals, I made it clear that the intent behind this article is to understand why many religious leaders distrust FACE. To answer this question, I focused almost entirely on FACE’s investigative process. I sought to understand both the philosophical and practical implications of this process and tried to be as objective and critical as I could.
I realize the sensitivity surrounding the topic, and I am mindful that it might lead to some unintended consequences. Writing this paper has been taxing for this very reason. It is very hard to criticize a system for its blatant deficiencies even though it aims to do something noble. The end goal of this article is to examine the current system of holding religious leaders who abuse their position of authority accountable. I hope it serves as a catalyst for instituting better policies and processes within FACE and/or encouraging religious leaders to take the initiative to regulate their own. Nothing more.
Trigger Warning: Some of the information mentioned in this article may be triggering for survivors of abuse, particularly abuse by religious leaders.
This article is divided into five sections. Reading one section alone will not give the reader a holistic view of the presented concerns and findings. I understand that dedicating time to read long articles is not easy; however, you must do so if you aim to contextualize the problem with FACE.
Section I: The Problem of American Imams
Those who have dedicated their lives to pursuing Islamic knowledge hold a higher status over the rest of us, and deservedly so. They are elevated above the rest because they are the link through which Islam is transmitted through the ages. When their guidance is sought or they give advice, they do so on behalf of Allah and His messenger. It is thus unsurprising that religious figures wield a substantial amount of influence over the rest of us, particularly over the impressionable amongst us. Reaching this honorable status requires more than mere knowledge of Islamic text and jurisprudence. It requires an elevated level of taqwa, prudence, and practical wisdom. It lies beyond the regurgitation of memorized text, much less the number of likes and shares on TikTok and Twitter. Taqwa, after all, relates to that which is hidden from people – the heart, and wisdom is a trait acquired only through sound judgment and deliberative counsel about the entangled affairs of humans, not hastily written Facebook statuses.
Yet, despite the heavy responsibility, titles like “Imam,“ “resident scholar,” and similar honorifics are casually and carelessly bestowed on individuals who are barely adults with little regard to their actual level of knowledge, taqwa, or wisdom. Worse, there haven’t been any serious efforts to define the boundaries of who is and isn’t a credible religious authority. Who is a religious leader, after all? Is a khateeb a religious leader? How about a young teenager who leads us in Taraweeh; would he be considered a religious leader? What about a social media influencer with an Islamic twist? To be clear, the issue here isn’t about agreeing on definitions or credentials – a task that is by no means easy or simple. Instead, it’s about the inability (or perhaps unwillingness) of Muslim religious leaders to self-regulate. And as is the case with any area of human behavior devoid of any regulations, abuse of the vulnerable and the unsuspecting is an inevitability.
An increasing number of Muslims see male religious leaders not as sources of spiritual guidance but as potential abusers. And if we’re honest, this is not an unreasonable perspective. Over the past five years, a handful of high-profile public religious figures were accused of abusing their position of trust. The most glaring examples include Mufti Mohammed Abdullah Saleem (2016), Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan (2017), Dr. Tariq Ramadan (2018), Imam Zia Sheikh (2019), and Ustadh Usama Canon, who recently passed away, may Allah have mercy on him (2019).
Reports of Muslim religious figures abusing members of their congregation or followers existed as far back as the early 2000s but were not common. However, the quantity and details in these reports became more commonplace recently, in part, by the website In Shaykh’s Clothing. Some of these accounts provided details about Imams attempting to cover for each other, threats of litigation against Imams who speak out, and sexual molestation in the name of Ruqya (loosely translated as exorcism). Still, despite efforts to inform others about these types of offenses, a large segment of the Muslim American community rejected these reports. More importantly, many Islamic institutes and a significant number of Imams refused to accept the veracity of the charges, shunning the advocates of these victims. There were many reasons behind this attitude, one of which is relevant to this article. That is, many believe that the process these reports adopted is flawed and biased.
The case of Nouman Ali Khan, discussed in more detail below, is critical as it serves as a crucial point in this story.
***
By 2017, Nouman Ali Khan reached a level of fame paralleled only by a few other religious figures in our modern times. He had launched Bayyinah Institute in 2005 and traveled city-to-city to teach Arabic. In 2010, Bayyinah launched its signature “Dream” program followed by Bayyinah TV in 2012. By that time, Nouman was a regular speaker at most of the prestigious Islamic conventions in the world. In 2013, he was named one of the world’s 500 most influential Muslims, and he was invited to meet the Malaysian Prime Minister in 2014. Put succinctly, he was perhaps the most sought-after Muslim preacher in the world.
On September 21, 2017, Omer Mozaffar, a Loyola University chaplain, wrote in a now-deleted Facebook post that Nouman confessed to “inappropriate interactions with various women,” “told lies to cover up those relationships,” and “filed threats of litigation against multiple parties to further hide his misconduct.” Rumors about Nouman’s indiscretions were a regular topic of discussion in WhatsApp groups and private meetings for months before this status. As Mozaffar put it, “Most of the Muslim community across the globe kn[e]w the rumors.” Months earlier, in June 2017, Imam Omar Suleiman published “What Do I Do When I Find Out My Favorite Preacher Is Corrupt?” with Nouman as its central yet undisclosed subject.
Mozaffar’s statement did not disclose the source of the rumors or their substance. It did, however, state that “Dallas scholars investigated the matter to protect possible victims” and that he was “asked to mediate … between Nouman and the scholars.” In doing so, Mozaffar “investigated the extensive evidence,” including interviewing Nouman himself. He declared that Nouman “admitted to some of the accusations, though the evidence was worse.” Mozaffar did not disclose the exact accusations he investigated or the evidence he referenced.
Confusion and chaos took over the Muslim sphere on social media prompting six nationally recognized religious and community leaders to publish a statement entitled, “A Statement Regarding Br. Nouman Ali Khan,” only 12 days after Mozaffar’s Facebook post. The article “confirm[ed] that Br. Nouman has committed significant violations of trust, spiritual abuse and unethical behavior.” Notably missing from the statement was a list of the violations or any evidence upon which the finding was based, as was the case with Mozaffar’s status. What it did introduce, however, is a new and undefined term into the Muslim lexicon. That is, the term “spiritual abuse.”
Chaos erupted again, with many statuses and allegations littering Facebook and Twitter feeds. A comment on a now-deleted Facebook status provided a summation of the cause of the chaos. It stated:
You speak about due process. With all due respect, what due process? This has been an uncoordinated circus show from the beginning. Nothing is clear. All that is clear is that nothing is clear for those who don’t have insider information and a full grasp of everything that has happened.
An uncoordinated circus show it was. What ensued was an intense disagreement between some of the most influential American Imams about how this issue was handled. I know firsthand that the conflict between many of these influential Imams was sharp and fraught with passion. Today, four years later, I believe that some wounds from this disagreement have yet to heal.
Amid all the confusion, one thing remained certain: Muslim religious leaders, including many Islamic institutions, did not agree to any mechanism through which Imams guilty of specific forms of abuse could be held accountable. In the days that followed this incident, many wondered what these leaders would do if another “Nouman” situation happened again. I remember thinking, “total paralysis.” This remains true until today.
Section II: The System of FACE
By the time FACE was founded, two things were clear: (i) the religious leadership was either unwilling or incapable of self-regulation, and (ii) allegations of spiritual abuse were met with significant doubt and distrust. In response, Alia Salem registered FACE as a non-profit organization in Texas on September 15, 2017, a week before Mozaffar’s Facebook status.
FACE published a total of five investigative reports investigating Zia Sheikh (2018), Moataz Moftah (2019), Abo Ras (2020), Muneeb Ahmed (2021), and Fatih Seferagic (2021). Since its inception, FACE has received 146 allegations of abuse and currently has around 38 open cases. According to Alia, there hasn’t been an investigation that found that the allegations were untrue. Of the 146 allegations received, Fifty-four (i.e., 37%) were received in 2020 alone. More than half of all the allegations received are sexual abuse allegations.
FACE did not make its investigation process public until 2020 when it published a flow chart and a video describing its procedures. As I understand it, there are five stages through which every investigative report has to go through before publication. They are as follow (in order):
1 | An allegation is received through FACE’s website. This is called a “report.” |
2 | An interview is conducted to determine if an investigation is warranted. |
3 | An investigation is commenced, and an “investigative report” is written detailing the findings. |
4 | The “investigative report” is reviewed, and feedback is offered. |
5 | The feedback is incorporated, and the “investigative report” is published. |
This article focuses only on the first four stages, which cover the bulk of FACE’s investigative process. Below is an overview of them.
The first stage is meant to weed out allegations that aren’t within the scope of FACE. That scope is rather broad. It covers any physical,1During our interview, Alia told me that FACE does not investigate domestic violence allegations. sexual, financial, and spiritual abuse from community leaders (not just clergy persons) in the U.S. or Canada. For an allegation to move on to the second stage, it must be made by the victim him or herself or a person with direct knowledge (i.e., not hearsay) of the alleged violation.
If the allegations fall within FACE’s scope, the process moves to the second stage. A FACE staff member sets up a meeting (typically a 30-minute or an hour-long session) with the person who filed the allegations to ask a set of predetermined questions. The purpose of this meeting is to determine if the allegations rise to the required level to begin an investigation. For lawyers, you can think of this as the motion to dismiss phase of a trial. It involves the following: Assuming that the allegations are true (i.e., without verifying the evidence at this stage), is there a sufficient basis to establish that the alleged violation(s) actually occurred. This is a typical procedure for most investigations.
If the staff member determines that there is sufficient basis to start an investigation, then the victim signs an irrevocable consent contract (i.e., a document stating that the alleged victim cannot withdraw their consent) permitting FACE to investigate these allegations.
The third stage of the process is where FACE investigates the allegations to determine if they are true (i.e., substantiating the claims). The evidentiary standard used in substantiating the allegations is unclear. According to FACE’s internal documents, the investigation includes collecting “statements and evidence provided from credible individuals who have direct knowledge of the actions that have transpired which resulted in the allegations.” The evidence sought is from the “person about whom the allegations were made” as well as “individuals presented by those alleging the abuse as well as other individuals whose relevant identities come up in the course of our investigation.” The internal documents further state, “The investigation is designed to be objective, uncover the truth, and pursue justice no matter where it is found. This approach helps FACE to protect against false allegations, conflicts of interest, or other biased influence.” After the investigation is concluded, a staff member writes an “investigative report” detailing the findings from the investigation.
After the investigative report is written, the fourth stage begins where the report is reviewed by multiple people, including the organization’s board members. According to Alia, others who are not officially affiliated with FACE also review the document. Amongst them is an unnamed person who professionally conducts investigations for a multinational corporation and two unnamed Imams. The feedback from the review process is then incorporated into the investigative report. The report is then evaluated for publishing based on specific criteria, which is not within the scope of this article.
Section III: FACE and the Concept of Justice
One of the foundational goals underpinning FACE’s investigative system is to minimize (if not eliminate) traditional obstacles endured by victims of sexual assault/abuse when they decide to report them. These challenges are prominent in criminal sexual investigations where the police typically refuse to investigate allegations because of evidentiary issues or the like. The hurdles in the Muslim community are different but are equally obstructive. Victims are often doubted, accused of lying, or flat-out dismissed. The response of many religious leaders to the victims of Nouman (and others before and after him) is case-in-point.
To address the challenges, FACE brought into existence a space where allegations of abuse are believed by virtue of being alleged (thus overcoming the reporting issues within the Muslim community) and are seriously addressed and investigated (thus overcoming the reporting issues in the criminal system). To do so, FACE asserted that it “unapologetically & unequivocally believe[s] all victims & survivors who are coming forward to hold their abusers accountable” and emphasized that their investigative process remains objective. This statement may appear contradictory on its face, but it is both sound and reasonable. It builds an ecosystem where a level of equilibrium is achieved between encouraging victims to report abuse (by validating their allegations as truthful irrespective of the outcome of the investigation) and assuring the accused of the impartiality of the investigation. This, in my view, is as close as it gets to achieving justice.
Allah directed Muslims to “stand firmly for justice” even if doing so requires testifying “against [our]selves, [our] parents, or close relatives.” Even when we have power over our foes, being fair and just is commanded, the fruits of which make us closer to Allah. But if we deviate away and “let [our] desires” lead us to use our power unfairly or negligently, then we’re promised “a severe punishment” on the Day of Judgment. The emphasis on justice isn’t unique to Muslims. Throughout history and to this day, justice, along with wisdom, courage, and temperance, are regarded as the essential vehicles through which societies flourish. Among the four traits, justice is considered the fundamental component, a gateway of sorts through which communities live in harmony.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term “justice” as the “maintenance or administration of what is just, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” In practice, a system of justice has three main elements: (1) fair and equitable rules, (2) unbiased processes to implement these rules, and (3) an impartial execution of the rules and the processes to reach a just outcome to the extent humanly possible. Thus, any unjustified tilting of the scales will inevitably lead to injustice.
In the case of FACE, the investigative process fails to achieve acceptable levels of fairness in all three elements in design and practice.
Section IV: The Problems With FACE
For the three reasons below, FACE has not lived up to its promise of achieving an equilibrium between encouraging the reporting of abuse and maintaining the necessary safeguards to ensure fairness and just treatment of all the parties involved.
- FACE’s investigative system is fundamentally prejudicial because it is (i) biased, (ii) predominantly run by unqualified investigators, and (iii) is filled with errors, unknowns, and ambiguities.
As an initial matter, I think it is important to describe the idea of due process briefly. “Due process” serves as a check-on-the-power of any institution (including employers in certain circumstances) to ensure that the process of taking certain “property” from people subject to this institution’s power is fair. In general terms, a system that employs “due process” protections is one that (i) gives its subjects an advance notice before taking away their property and (ii) allows them the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations asserted against them.
In the context of FACE, the “property interest” is the subject’s reputation and, in most cases, their employment too. The “advance notice” would be a list of defined rules that are adequately promulgated (i.e., published and distributed). The idea here is that no set of violations can be binding unless those to whom it applies know of them so that they can avoid them, even if actual knowledge of these violations is absent for a particular individual. In other words, a “secret law is no law at all.” The second component of due process is the “opportunity to be heard,” where opposing parties are given a chance to present their evidence and arguments to support their position. None of these elements are found in FACE’s investigative system.
In a video published on Facebook in April 2020, Alia explicitly declared that FACE’s investigative process does not employ the elements of due process. In the excerpt below (starting at minute 28:55), Alia first confused due process with the evidentiary standard used in criminal cases, then went on to differentiate between employment-type violations from the criminal system, neither of which applies to FACE’s mission of holding Imams accountable. She said (lightly edited to improve readability):
Now some people oftentimes will say, “excuse me sister Alia, but that is not due process?” … Through my work, I’ve come to understand … due process … [as] a process for which to hold somebody criminally responsible. When we hear “beyond a shadow of a doubt” in a court trial or a criminal process and hearing, the idea of due process is if you’re going to take someone’s rights away, [like] you’re going to incarcerate them, put them on suspension or probation, [or] there’s going to be some harm that comes to them, some – you know – monetary harm, etc.
When you’re trying to hold somebody accountable for a work purpose [like] if somebody violates ethics and protocol in an employment environment or [in] a community setting, due process is not applicable in that same way.
It is unclear what Alia means by asserting that due process is not applicable in “a community setting.” More importantly, FACE does not employ the individuals it investigates. It never received (or even sought) a mandate to regulate religious leadership. In other words, FACE is an entirely self-proclaimed investigative body. From the beginning and until today, FACE’s main aim was to hold “abusive religious and community leaders accountable” by issuing reports substantiating abuse allegations (i.e., by making a judgment call according to its processes). In doing so, FACE sees itself as a soldier fighting to “foster safe community environments.” Yet, Alia openly admits that FACE does not consider “due process” in carrying out its mission. Instead, FACE’s investigative system is devised to “out” those accused of abuse irrespective of what the accused has to say about the relevant accusations. Alia said in the same video cited above:
Now we want to be fair. We want to give people an opportunity to share information with us. Even, let’s say that we don’t approach somebody for comment, which again, it’s happened, but it’s an unlikely scenario, let’s say we don’t approach somebody for comment, okay? They have all the freedom in the world to send us an email. They themselves can go on their own social media platforms and talk about it. They can, you know, talk to whatever media outlet that [they] want to. We don’t inhibit the accused in any way from speaking [or] from having their first amendment rights honored.
In other words, Alia wants the accused to take the initiative and reach out to them, the investigators, instead of the other way around. The irony here is that Alia advised the exact opposite when she was a CAIR executive director. She tweeted a video urging the community to “politely decline the interview [with FBI investigators] and say that you’ll happily sit down with them in the presence of your attorney.” While the FBI is not the same as FACE, the concept is the same. When one is being investigated, why would they carry the burden of clearing their name as opposed to FACE having to prove the violations?
Perhaps one of the most unambiguous statements made by Alia that directly contradicts the organization’s commitment to uncovering the “objective truth” was when she said in the same video cited above:
For our purpose, because we are victim-centered like I said, we’re not here to give a bully pulpit to people who we substantiated abuse allegations against. So that’s kind of the essence behind that process.
This statement makes it clear that FACE’s system equates allowing the accused to give their side of the story to giving them “the bully pulpit.” Such an approach does not aim for or lead to an objective system. Instead, it is the very definition of bias and is markedly unjust. One cannot impartially substantiate an alleged violation without first talking to both sides (with very few exceptions). In fact, Allah reproached prophet Dawud alayhi assalam when he judged between two adversaries after only listening to one side and not the other.
FACE’s most recent report was on Fatih Seferagic. It announced that it opened an investigation to substantiate allegations of abuse by Fatih on July 10, 2020. Fourteen months later, on August 31, 2021, FACE published the investigation’s findings. According to Fatih (and to FACE’s report), the first time FACE reached out to him was on August 28, 2021, a mere two and half days before the report’s publication. That is, FACE reached out to the accused after (i) they completed the investigation, (ii) reached a conclusion on the allegations, (iii) wrote the report, and (iv) the reviewers reviewed the report. According to Fatih, FACE reached out to Fatih with a deadline of 48 hours and did not inform him of the allegations or the evidence against him. Similarly, Hassan Shibly, who has been under investigation by FACE since January 13, 2021, also told me that FACE investigators hadn’t contacted him regarding the substance of the investigation.
How can such a system be described as impartial? How can one defend himself in such a system? The reality is that FACE never envisioned the accused’s participation as a pillar of its investigation, as evident by Alia’s statements above. FACE’s blatant systematic exclusion of the accused from the process of investigation is patently unfair.
But there is more. FACE’s primary mission is to pass a judgment on allegations of abuse by either substantiating them or finding them invalid. However, FACE’s system does not include an appellate body that can independently overturn the findings of its investigators. Reasonable people have realized long ago that humans often get things wrong because they are fallible. To remedy this deficiency, legitimate systems of judgment have included mechanisms such as an appeal process to allow for self-correction when the system gets it wrong. Put another way, a method of judgment that does not have a self-correcting mechanism presumes an impossibility; it presupposes that it is perfect.
The combination of the elimination of due process and the absence of an independent appellate body with the power to overturn the findings of FACE’s investigations places an enormous amount of unchecked power in the hands of the investigators—both of whom, by their admission, are not trained or certified to conduct investigations.
***
FACE has two investigators, Alia and Sara Bawany. According to an article by Haute Hijab, Alia earned her bachelor’s degree in Interdisciplinary Studies with focuses on Communications, Sociology, and Religion/Culture. Before co-founding FACE, Alia served as the Executive Director of CAIR-Dallas. Her work extended to issues of racial justice amongst other social justice causes. Sara, according to FACE’s website, is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (“LCSW”) and Certified Case Manager (“CCM”).
During my interview with Alia, she confirmed that neither one of them received any certification or training on being an investigator. The only training she received was on “how to question interviewees from a legal perspective,” but she couldn’t “remember what [the training] is called, off the top of my head.” She continued, “I got some of my experience when I was working in civil rights and social justice work because we had to work with all the different governmental agencies and be able to collect information and data.” As for Sara, Alia said, “Sara is a licensed clinical social worker. She is trained to do research, et cetera.” It wasn’t immediately clear the relationship between “research,” being a licensed clinical social worker, and doing investigative work. According to the National Association of Social Workers, an LCSW is:
Licensed Clinical Social Workers (LCSWs) hold the highest level of license in the social work profession.
LCSWs are skilled mental health professionals who are authorized to assess, diagnose, and treat individuals and families of all ages & economic groups. They treat a range of problems including behavioral disorders, addictions, severe mental illness, and serious emotional disturbance. They provide individual, marital, couple, family, and group therapy, mediation, counseling, supportive counseling, direct practice, and psychotherapy.
LCSWs are uniquely qualified by their skills and training in health, mental health, diversity and social issues to treat vulnerable populations.
Conspicuously missing from the list of qualifications is any skill that remotely relates to conducting investigations, evaluating evidence, or substantiating allegations of abuse. When I asked Alia about the qualifications of the investigators, she said, “I don’t want to do this [i.e., investigative work] long term. I’m doing it because I have some competencies, and I have been able to get resources.” She continued, “The vision is to have certified people in place, but we couldn’t wait for that to start it [i.e., FACE].” In the meantime, “we are doing our best.”
But what happens if “our best” is not good enough? I kept asking myself, how can an investigative system be adequately run by individuals who don’t have any formal training or experience in investigation whatsoever? How can the system be labeled as just and fair? The only answer I kept returning to was, “but what is the alternative?”
***
Lastly, FACE’s system is fundamentally unfair because it is filled with errors, ambiguities, and unknowns. Since its inception in 2017, FACE has not published a list of charges – or code of conduct of sorts – that outlines a list of violations (whether physical, sexual, financial, or spiritual). This goes to the “notice” concept of due process mentioned above. During a conversation in 2019, Alia said that FACE was working on producing a code of conduct similar to the one published by In Shaykh’s Clothing that year. As of today, this has not yet materialized.
Such a vacuum is problematic because it frees FACE from any restrains in its reach. In other words, FACE has unrestricted discretion to create its own set of violations on the fly and without any independent oversight or a defined process. This unchecked discretion allows FACE to create violations to fit the “crime,” not the other way around. For example, in its report on Abo Ras, FACE concluded that the accused committed “clergy misconduct.” See p4 of Abo Ras’ report. FACE then defines the term for the first time since its inception in footnote five as:
[A] broad term that encompasses violations by clergy persons or religious leaders who actively transgress the ethical boundaries of their position.
How can one defend against this charge? Where is the list of ethical boundaries to determine if Abo Ras’s actions constitute a violation of this charge? There is none. Who came up with this secret list, and based on what process? No one knows. In an attempt to clarify the definition, the report provided an example. Yet, the example fits the exact alleged violation asserted against Abo Ras in what can only be described as laser-like accuracy. It’s as if the example was explicitly created to fit Abo Ras’s actions. This hindsight criminalization of acts is not only profoundly unjust but the retroactive application of the violation on the fly is terrifying.
The absence of a promulgated list of rules creates an environment that enables FACE to piecemeal violations based on various systems (e.g., Islamic, legal, and ethical systems). In fact, that is exactly the case in the published reports where FACE used a mixture of legal charges, Islamic violations, ethics violations, and made-up charges.2An example of the legal charges is “rape,” which can be found on page 6 of the Fatih Seferagic report under “Allegation #2.” An example of Islamic charges can be found on pages 10-11 of the report on Moataz Moftah under “Allegations #4 – Misappropriation of Zakah funds” and the violation “Takhbib” found on page 4 of the report on Abo Ras. FACE’s use of ethical violations includes the charge of “spiritual abuse.” See p7 of the Seferagic report. And lastly, an example of a newly created charge can be found in footnotes 2, 5, 6, and 10 of the Abo Ras’s report. This fragmentation puts the accused in an undefendable position while empowering FACE with an absolute amount of freedom to substantiate allegations of abuse while circumventing all the measures instituted in these systems to prevent a misuse or abuse of persecution and prosecution.
- FACE lacks a sufficiently robust oversight from either secular or religious bodies.
In my interview with Saud, I asked him if the board conducted any audits or hired any outside organizations to audit the work undertaken by FACE. He said, “Each and every board member reviews the report before it comes out.” I asked him again about any audits of the investigative process as opposed to the compiled report. He confirmed that there hadn’t been any audits, independent or otherwise. He insisted that the board “drills down deep on the reports” but conceded that “there [hasn’t been any] audits per se.”
When I asked Alia if FACE had any internal or external checks-and-balances mechanisms, her answer similarly focused on the review process of the investigative reports. As a reminder to the reader, the review stage starts after the reports are written and the allegations “substantiated.” In other words, the review process does not apply to the investigation process itself; instead, it focuses on the outcome of the investigation.
Alia’s own words support this conclusion. At minute 31:09 of the same Facebook video cited above, she said:
So, let’s say we’ve substantiated [the allegations], we [then] review this information, and we make sure that people who are subject matter experts in the areas of law, organizational development, mental health, grassroots organizing, finance, and religious ethics and jurisprudence, we make sure that those eyes are on … this report, and they give feedback with respect to what it is that they’re seeing. We’ve done that from the absolute beginning.
In addition to members of FACE’s board, a handful of people not affiliated with the organization review the investigative report before they are published. The list included two Imams and an investigator in an international non-profit. Alia told me the names of the Imams (on the condition not to publish them), but she refused to share with me the investigator’s name. It is noted that the published reports do not list the names of any religious figures as having reviewed the document before its publication.
Both Saud and Alia confirmed that FACE does not have an official religious oversight committee or council. However, Alia insisted that she sought religious counsel from the beginning from multiple Imams and religious leaders. Only six individuals – including only one female – offered their religious expertise to FACE. Of the six individuals, only two stayed on in an unofficial capacity to review some investigative reports – an Imam from Texas and another Imam from California. In my interview with these two Imams, they confirmed that they reviewed one or two reports but not the investigative process itself. Neither of them reviewed the underlying evidence used in these reports, and neither agreed to be named.
When I asked Alia why she thought religious figures declined to be associated with FACE, she explained that “it is not easy to associate with this type of community work.” Female religious leaders have refused to affiliate with FACE’s reports because “they did not want to cloud the other work they’ve done by associating with FACE.” She added, “it is hard to be a female religious leader” and stated that affiliating with FACE would detrimentally affect their community work.
- The chronic underfunding of FACE adversely affects its ability to substantiate the allegations asserted against the accused fairly.
In the four years since its inception, FACE has “never [completed an] investigation [in] less than 7 months.” In fact, the investigations could take “months and even years in extreme circumstances.” Because FACE has around 38 open cases and only two investigators, the current load of investigations will take at least 11 years to be substantiated,3Calculated by multiplying 38 cases by 7 months /12 months a year, and then divided by 2 investigators. assuming that the investigators work on one case at a time. But even if the untrained investigators work on three cases at a time, the investigation of some of these open cases would not start until 3.5 years from today! How is that fair to the victims? How just is this for the accused?
I asked Saud if he thought the lack of sufficient funding adversely impacts Alia’s ability to carry out FACE’s mission. He answered me candidly saying, “We have a capacity issue.” He added, “Does it do justice to the [victim or the accused]? Absolutely not. Is it unfair? Absolutely.” In Saud’s mind, this shouldn’t be held against FACE because FACE is the only one seeking to ensure that the community is safe from abusers. He asked, “What are we supposed to do when we have these allegations? Close our eyes?”
On the issue of funding, FACE does not accept money from Muslim institutions unless they are solely philanthropic. According to Alia, about 75% of the organization’s income comes from individual contributions and about 25% from grants. Regarding the individual contributions, it is unclear how much money FACE was able to raise based on public records. In 2019, FACE raised over $30,000 on LaunchGood and a total of $55,000 on Facebook as of August 2021. More recently, FACE raised about $11,000 using a crowdsourcing website called North Texas Giving Day. In a now-deleted Facebook status published in January 2021, Alia reached out to her supporters seeking to raise $700,000. According to Alia’s post, the $700,000 figure will allow FACE to “hire 4 additional staff, get our team health insurance, ramp up our investigations and build out the education wing of our work.” It is unclear if FACE was able to raise that amount of money. As for the grants, Alia wrote in the same Facebook status that FACE was “denied grant after grant because we were not in a prioritized field of work and the connections I needed to facilitate rapid funding have not been established yet.” Moreover, Alia told me that FACE was working on a grant from a family foundation in the DFW area, but it was not clear if FACE ever received that grant.
According to the IRS, FACE has not filed the required tax forms for 2019 and 2020 yet.4Alia told me that FACE recently filed the proper tax forms for 2019 and 2020 and that the system should be updated soon It only filed Form 990-N for 2017 and 2018. These forms indicate that FACE received less than $50,000 in income in these two years. More importantly, further research appears to suggest that FACE lost its non-profit privileges in Texas some time ago “as a result of a tax forfeiture or an administrative forfeiture by Texas Secretary of State.” FACE appears to have not paid its franchise taxes to maintain its non-profit status in Texas,5“Failure to [pay the franchise taxes] will cause the loss of corporate privileges as well as the forfeiture of charter by the Texas Secretary of State.” Texas Comptroller’s Office, comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/publications/96-1045.php. Accessed 7 Sept. 2021. putting into question the organization’s status as a legal entity.
Three questions come to mind: First, if FACE is deprived of the proper resources to carry out the organization’s mission (i.e., to substantiate allegations of abuse), how can the community trust that each investigation receives its due right and proper attention? Second, how can an organization that suffers from chronic financial turbulence (based on IRS filings and Alia’s appeals) function objectively without the necessary funds to carry its mission? Third, if FACE is dismantled, who would fill the gap, and how will they fund such an effort?
I don’t believe that I have the answers. Perhaps the community should decide for itself.
Section V – The Way Forward
Muslim American Imams cannot have it both ways. They cannot criticize a flawed system and, at the same time, not do anything to regulate themselves. Who is considered a “religious leader”? To what standards (ethical and Islamic) are members of this group held accountable? What happens when they violate these standards? What are the mechanisms of identifying and investigating these violations? Who administers that system? These questions have yet to be answered since the Nouman incident. It is necessary, if not required, that an appropriate infrastructure or medium is created through which Imams can regulate their profession. Things like an agreed-upon code of conduct or duty-of-care can only come into existence through such an infrastructure and under the leadership and guidance of American Islamic scholars and victim-advocates.
The inability of the religious leaders in America to organize themselves has been a source of personal frustration for years now. As it stands today, the concept of holding our religious leaders to some level of duty and responsibility (whether to other religious scholars and/or to the general community) is nothing more than a figment of the imagination. It lends itself to popular views and is prone to abuse and stubbornness. FACE is a child of “public outing” and popular opinions, but even FACE has no enforcement mechanism beyond public shaming.
On the other hand, FACE has a lot of work ahead of it to achieve its stated mission and vision. As a starting point, it must either create or adopt an acceptable code of conduct. A code of conduct is a crucial component of any fair process as it names and sets the criteria for what constitutes a violation. This deficiency constitutes a direct contradiction to two fundamental concepts of justice, personal jurisdiction and proper notice. It would serve as a check on the discretion and power wielded by FACE. Moreover, this code of conduct could serve an educational purpose for the Imams and community-at-large where the lines of abuse are defined in a manner that is understandable to them.
While a few codes of conduct have already been published, none of them included the involvement of the community they aim to govern—the Imams. This document cannot be the product of the efforts of only a few individuals. Instead, it must involve those who represent the interests of the religious leadership. It is true that authority within American Imams is highly decentralized. However, mainstream organizations that are respected by a substantial portion of American Imams and represent a significant number of them do exist. These organizations include the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), and the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. Including them and other similar bodies in the process will help garner support and legitimacy of the types of violations and procedures, and ensure its acceptability by the bulk of Imams and institutions in America. This proposal envisions an active and meaningful participation of the representatives of Imams, Islamic institutions, and victim-advocates, not just one group.
Other concerns include the systemization of the evidentiary standard employed by FACE to substantiate allegations of abuse. An evidentiary standard is the amount of proof required to establish that a particular violation took place. Moreover, the qualification of FACE’s investigators and the adjudication bodies as well as the relaxed checks and balances on FACE’s process should be addressed.
Having a fair system to hold Imams accountable is integral to the survival of their profession, which by extension is essential to the survival of Islam in America. In my view, the institution of Imamship ought to be protected from within (i.e., by surgically removing the harmful elements from within) and from without (i.e., outside threats). FACE sought to do that in many ways, but in practice, their system is inadequate. It goes without saying that the source of the harm posed to the institution of Imamship is primarily from within the Imams themselves.
Saud’s rhetorical question is worth contemplating. What is the community supposed to do when an Imam abuses his power? Close its eyes? I hope not.
Haytham Soliman is a law student with a graduate degree in Nanoscience and Microsystems from the University of New Mexico. Growing up in Houston, Haytham has been an active member of the Muslim community for the past 17 years. He previously served as the Executive Director and a board member of MuslimMatters.org and the Director of the Texas Dawah Convention. Haytham grew up in a house of Islamic scholarship with his mother, Hanaa Gamal, a graduate of Al-Azhar University-Cairo, as his primary teacher. He is currently employed by the U.S. Department of Commerce.