Community Announcement 10.19.2018: FACE Response to Feedback After Report Release
Last week, FACE released its first “Misconduct Report” detailing the circumstances surrounding the documented violations by religious leader Zia Sheikh (hereinafter “Sheikh”) and the institutional response from his former employers. We have received several comments, questions, and concerns regarding FACE’s methodology, the content of the report, and the impact this has on our community. We have compiled and consolidated those communications and address them directly below.
1. This report should not have been made public and the matter should have been dealt with privately.
A portion of this can also be found in the report on page 11:
FACE has chosen to release this report publicly in an effort to expose Sheikh’s abuse of power and repetitive unethical conduct in his role as an entrusted imam, counselor, and spiritual guide. The purpose of this report is to protect the Muslim community from allowing Sheikh to access another religious leadership position since he has repeatedly violated his position of trust and confidence, misused his spiritual authority, and endangered the health of female congregants in three different masajid across the United States.
In determining whether or not to make the report public, we considered the following factors:
1. Severity of the misconduct;
2. Established pattern of abusive behavior;
3. Sheikh’s unwillingness to accept responsibility and leave service;
4. Despite the commendable and proactive approach by ICI to distribute a letter to masajid leadership across the country outlining the circumstances of Sheikh’s termination, the letter alone was ineffective in prohibiting other masajid from hiring or considering hiring Sheikh. In fact, Sheikh was hired by the Grand Prairie Masjid in Texas as a resident imam in August of 2018;
Additionally, and more compelling, is the supporting evidence from the tradition of our beloved Prophet ﷺ on how to stop private harms by creating public exposure. Dr. Shadee Elmasry pointed us to this important chain of narration on the subject which can also be found posted at The Safina Society Blog and from the original hadith sources - Narrated by Bukhari in his Adab + Abu Dawud, Ibn Abu Shayba, Bayhaqi, Haakim and others:
The Prophetic solution to people who are harmed in private:
Abu Hurayra said: A man came and said, "Messenger of Allah, I have a neighbor who harms me." The Prophet ﷺ said, "Go and place all your belongings in the road." So he did that and all the people gathered around him and said, "What is the matter?" He said, "I have a neighbor who harms me so the Prophet ﷺ told me to place all my belongings in the road. The people began saying about this neighbor, "O Allah curse him! O Allah punish him!" Word reached the neighbor, so he came to him and said, "Return home and by Allah, I will never harm you again."
In another narration, the Prophet ﷺ said, "Go and place your belongings on the road and whoever passes you will curse him."
In another narration, the man returned to the Prophet ﷺ and he ﷺ asked, "What did the people say?" The man said, "They all invoked lan'a upon him." The Prophet ﷺ said, "Allah's curse is above their curse. Return home, for now, you are safe."
In another narration, the neighbor himself came to the Prophet ﷺ saying that the man had placed his belongings in the road and was telling people about what happened between them privately. The Prophet ﷺ said, "And what did the people say?" He said, "They are all cursing me." The Prophet ﷺ said, "And Allah had cursed you before the people did." Then the man swore never to abuse his neighbor again.
In Bayhaqi's narration, the man had complained three times to the Prophet ﷺ, who advised him to be patient. Then on the fourth time, he used the public.
The lesson here. Certain things are not necessarily crimes. Other things are crimes that can't be prosecuted because there's no evidence or witnesses. So how do can we stop such harm? The Prophet ﷺ taught this man to invoke public ire against the person, and that will stop him. If taqwa doesn't stop a person, the law will. If the law can't, then public embarrassment (sic) will.”
2. FACE is making a big deal out of nothing. Most of our leaders are great!
That is 100% correct; the vast majority of Muslim leaders are upstanding individuals that work very hard to guide and protect our community in their various capacities. Unfortunately, there are some leaders who abuse their positions of power and engage in egregious violations that warrant addressing them comprehensively. It is also important to mention that most of our institutions are not adequately set up to effectively address such issues or hold their leaders accountable, even at the local level.
Since our founding last year, FACE has been made aware of numerous cases of abuse at the hands of religious leaders and community leaders, including but not limited to pedophilia, child pornography of Islamic school students, physical abuse of Qur’an and hifz students, rape and sexual assault of congregants and employees, sexual assault and spiritual abuse of new converts, marriage under false pretense, embezzlement, bribery, extortion, misappropriation of funds, counseling malpractice, and physical assault. Having knowledge of specific violations in our community has compelled us to take dramatic steps to help safeguard the community.
3. Why didn’t you include any proof in the report like the text messages, images, etc.
In the report, FACE enumerated the forms of evidentiary support we obtained which were probative in making a determination of egregious ethical misconduct and abuse of power. The report also includes a link to the lawsuit and ICI’s letter publicly announcing the circumstances for Sheikh’s departure. Sharing additional sensitive and graphic materials would be unnecessarily traumatic to the victim and community, risks revealing the identity of the victim, and would compromise the integrity of the forthcoming legal proceedings. FACE has determined that the report, the lawsuit, and the attachments included provide sufficient evidentiary support to place the community on notice. If there is a future opportunity to release more forms of evidentiary support, FACE will consider it at that time.
4. You need four witnesses to make allegations of zina. Where are the four witnesses?
FACE is not making an allegation of zina. FACE is exposing a pattern of abuse of power and ethical violations that occurred during the course of Sheikh’s employment as an imam. The intended purpose is to warn the community for its safety. A portion of those violations detailed a physical act of sexual intercourse with a congregant. That congregant, Jane Doe 1, reported the encounter herself. Additionally, statements were provided to FACE that Sheikh admitted to the sex act in the presence of Jane Doe 1’s attorney along with Jane Doe 1, her mother, and her stepfather. Disclosing anyone’s identity more than what has already been shared would compromise the victim’s identity and cause unnecessary additional trauma.
5. You should have contacted Sheikh prior to your publication of the report.
This can also be found in the report on page 12:
After speaking initially with Jane Doe 1 and her family, FACE launched a separate inquiry concerning Sheikh’s professional history as an imam. FACE independently uncovered 22 years of work history that included 3 dismissals from each formal position that Sheikh held as a religious leader in the United States. All 3 dismissals resulted from Sheikh’s unethical conduct with female members of his congregations.
Based on this information, Sheikh’s public denial of engaging in sexual intercourse with Jane Doe 1, despite corroborated evidence that Sheikh admitted to the violation in at least two separate instances in less public settings, and his refusal to voluntarily step away from clergy service, FACE made an intentional decision not to request an interview with Sheikh. FACE also concluded that because three of Sheikh’s previous employer’s representatives provided statements, completely independent of one another, delineating a clear pattern of abuse of power in relation to female congregants, FACE did not deem any additional comment from Sheikh necessary.
This is a specific decision made in this case, due to the overwhelming and varied nature of the evidence, but is not a standard process. Reports of abuse vary in nature and in the availability of corroborating evidence, future cases may necessitate FACE speak directly to the accused to accomplish the goals of inquiry and reporting.
6. Which scholars, imams or other respectable elders in DFW did you consult who approved your report about Sheikh?
We take the confidentiality of our advisors, sources, and especially victims very seriously and will not disclose their identities publicly. Nonetheless, FACE affirms that we have sought the advice of prominent religious scholars, mental health professionals, attorneys, and community leaders. The purpose of the report is to protect communities by placing them on notice of egregious ethical misconduct in an effort to prevent those who have abused their position of power to find a similar position in a different state or locale. Each community should have access to the circumstances of Sheikh’s termination of employment and assess the risk of harm to their congregations should they choose to employ Sheikh in a leadership position in the future.
7. Since there are usually no witnesses nor secondary evidences of sexual abuse, all an agency can rely on is a degree of tawaatur. So you'd have to wait until enough testimonies pile up and then bring it forward to the employer. One incident is usually not enough. Two might be. Three separate testimonies from people who don't know each other is the beginning of a pattern, and so on. Until there are so many testimonies, it can't be ignored. My question is simply, if this is also how you view the matter?
The burden of proof to warn communities to proceed with caution in employing religious leaders who have engaged in ethical misconduct is not the same level of proof required in a criminal trial where life or liberty are at stake. FACE is not an adjudicatory body. Instead, FACE places the community on notice to protect it from exploitation by individuals holding a position of power. One of the most compelling elements for exposure is evidence of repeated behavior and is thus a particular point of focus for FACE during the inquiry process.
Anas b. Mālik reports:
“A young man who had stolen was brought to ʿUmar (for punishment). He said, “By Allāh I have never stolen before this time.” So ʿUmar responded, “You lie, Allāh would not (or does not) surrender a servant of His on the first sin.”
Abū Dāwūd, Al-Zuhd article 56, and others. Graded ṣaḥīh by Ibn Kathīr and others
Nonetheless, one incident of abuse may be enough to warrant exposure depending on a multitude of factors, including but not limited to the type of harm, the level of egregiousness, and the degree of evidentiary support. For example, a child molestation case is qualitatively distinct from a secret marriage case, and the corresponding risk to the community is also significantly different.
8. Your report wrongfully makes statements, directly and indirectly, about community members (i.e. Nouman Ali Khan) that are inaccurate and misleading.
Former board President of ICI, Nouman Ali Khan (hereinafter “Khan”), disputes the validity of the report, claiming the portion of the report that concerned his involvement in the handling of the allegation disclosure was inaccurate. Focusing on the 3 sentences of the 12-page report that mentioned his involvement, Khan stated that he believes this section contains inaccurate information, which unfairly painted him in a negative light and made assumptions as to his reason for stepping down. Upon speaking with Khan privately, he was assured that his concerns would be taken seriously and would be brought to the FACE team, as would all comments and concerns received from the community.
This report’s focus is not Khan; it is Sheikh. Khan’s ancillary role is only discussed to provide context concerning best practices regarding survivors reporting abuse to the institutional head employing the imam, against whom an allegation of sexual impropriety has been made. Therefore, FACE did not devote more space to provide unnecessary detail that is immaterial and does not change the outcome or conclusion of the report. The purpose of this report is to expose the violations that led to Sheikh’s removal and shed light on institutional failures that created fertile ground for Sheikh to exploit his position of power.
The information included in the report was provided by three separate trustworthy sources, including ICI board members, as was stated in the list of evidentiary support. FACE shared only the corroborated information that wasn’t contradicted by the other source’s independent statements and limited the detail to include only what FACE deemed relevant to portray the series of events concerning the reporting of the allegations and how masjid representatives handled them.
One of Khan’s chief complaints is that he was not the first person Jane Doe 1 “spoke” to. Technically, that is true. Jane Doe 1 reached out to the ICI main office and said she needed to speak to a masjid representative about a serious issue regarding the imam. The person at the office referred the comment to the board secretary who referred it to the vice president who referred it to Khan, who then spoke to Jane Doe 1 in detail.
According to Jane Doe 1, Khan was the first official ICI representative she reported the matter to, in detail and with evidentiary support. Jane Doe 1 stated that after speaking to Khan, “I was rather upset with how he spoke to me, I felt like I was the one hurting people rather than the person needing help.” When Khan failed to follow up with Jane Doe 1 regarding her complaints, Jane Doe 1 felt that she had no recourse within ICI and was forced to engage and re-report the same intimate details to other local religious leaders who ultimately connected her to a different ICI board member. That board member, who was previously unaware of the allegations from any source, called an emergency meeting with the ICI board where the allegations and evidence were presented in their entirety to the board members present at the meeting. Khan was not in attendance at this meeting, which was the first step in substantively addressing Jane Doe 1’s grievances from the institutional perspective.
9. Why did Grand Prairie hire him if they already had the knowledge of his dismissal from ICI?
Please contact Grand Prairie Islamic Center in regards to this question. Reference our response in Question 10.
10. Was Grand Prairie notified of FACE’s findings prior to the release of the report?
Several days prior to reaching out to Grand Prairie masjid, FACE contacted Grand Prairie community members to inquire about current board members and ascertain who the most appropriate people to reach out to should be. FACE was directed towards Imam Mohamed Shakib (hereinafter “Shakib”) as the point person handling masjid affairs.
On Friday October 5th, a FACE representative began reaching out to Shakib to set a meeting with him and his board. According to the FACE representative, initially there seemed a willingness to speak but FACE was unable to address masjid representatives ahead of the report release despite our best efforts. After the release of the report, FACE remained open to meeting with the Grand Prairie masjid officials, but masjid leaders declined.
11. This exposure is going to harm our community and cause people to hate and fear us more than they already do.
FACE is comprised of members of the Muslim community who are familiar with the way that negative information about Islam and Muslims is weaponized against our community to further Islamophobic agendas. That cannot, however, paralyze or stop us from effectively protecting our houses of worship and institutions from unethical or abusive leaders. There are people in every community who abuse their positions of power and authority for their own personal gain and the Muslim community is no different. We cannot compromise confronting such abuse and perpetuating the climate of secrecy and silence that allows abuse to remain unchecked.
12. Are you coming after anyone who has more than one wife? What is FACE’s position on bigamy?
FACE is not a religious institution and thus does not take a position on such issues, especially concerning individual interpretations and observance of Islamic practices that are generally applicable. FACE’s role is to intervene when there are credible allegations of abuse, ethical violations, and the removal of rights by a religious or community leader.