17 VOLUME 9 |ISSUE 1 |2018
Most of the allegations with which I am familiar, which usually
occur via social media, have been against male scholars,
speakers, and leaders, largely by women who claim they were
or were almost swindled into “secret marriages.” Other women
have also made some accusations involving sexual harassment.
These male Muslim figures have celebrity status, which has
given rise to the term celebrity shaykh (Arabic for Muslim male
scholar).
Unfortunately, thus far, particularly in the United States, Muslim
community leaders have handled these situations either by
making overly broad and vague accusations such as “sexual
misconduct,” which leaves too much to the imagination, or,
on the other end of the spectrum, results by sweeping the
allegations under the rug without any real investigation.
The problem with vague and broad accusations specifically is
that people cannot determine whether the misconduct could
truly be characterized as spiritual abuse—or any misconduct at
all. The result is confusion and skepticism within the community
at large, which ultimately discredits future victims of spiritual
abuse.
To address this lack of clarity, those who handle such cases,
whether or not they are attorneys, can benefit from using legal
reasoning to address cases of spiritual abuse, even if they are
doing so outside of the courtroom. Those who handle cases
of spiritual abuse must consider many aspects. In my own
experience dealing with these cases, for instance, I have had to
consider social factors, the validity of the evidence and veracity
of the claimants, politics, covert manipulation, and moral issues.
But before I considered anything, I had to define spiritual abuse
and the benchmarks I would use. As an attorney, I found it
most helpful to use my legal reasoning to decrease error in my
analyses.
Introducing Legal Analysis
When one is uncovering cases of spiritual abuse, many
allegations are thrown around, and rumors easily buzz:
“You heard what about Ustadh X?”
“They said that he harassed these women.”
“Harassed… like... wait—rape?!”
“Well, maybe—it’s actually not clear.”
“I heard there was consent… so then there was no
harassment!”
And queue the allegations, the rebuttals, the rebuttals of
the rebuttals, and eventual mudslinging and scandal. All the
while, the main issues are lost, victims are blamed, the alleged
perpetrator is slandered, and on some fronts, the dialogue
focuses on the personalities rather than on addressing the
matters at hand. In the end, most people are confused about
what exactly happened, and the dialogue turns to irrelevant
matters.
Although cases of spiritual abuse usually are handled outside
of the legal system, we all can benefit from legal tools to clearly
address spiritual abuse. One of the most basic legal analytic
tools is called IRAC—Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion.
Generally speaking, defining issues is probably one of the most
underrated and overlooked exercises in debate. Without clearly
defining the issues, one can easily go down a rabbit hole of
irrelevant points in connection with the matter.
So what does IRAC look like? Let’s examine a hypothetical
scenario for the legal claim of negligence.
Consider the following basic fact pattern:
• A driver is texting and driving. In an effort to avoid a
child who unexpectedly runs into the street, the driver
hits and seriously injures an adult pedestrian, who
had slightly wandered onto the road immediately
ahead.
• At trial, an expert witness testifies that, even if the
driver had not been texting, he still would have hit
the pedestrian in the same way. Meanwhile, outside,
angry protesters are blaming a variety of things,
including the driver, for cellphone use while driving
the child’s parents, for not restraining the child the
driver, for “not paying attention” and the pedestrian,
for “not watching where she is going.”
Who is at fault? What are the specific actions at play? Is it
possible that no one is at a fault at all, but that this is simply
a series of unfortunate events? Addressing these questions is
where IRAC is useful in enabling one to clearly and coherently
assess whether the legal claim of negligence is applicable.
The analysis would play out as follows:
• Issue (aka question presented): Does the driver’s use
of his mobile device constitute negligence as to the
pedestrian?
• Rule (aka legal standard): The elements of negligence
are (a) duty of care, (b) breach, (c) causation, and (d)
damages.
This paper’s goal is to
set forth a method for
using legal analysis and
frameworks in evaluating
whether an instance
of spiritual abuse has
occurred…
Most of the allegations with which I am familiar, which usually
occur via social media, have been against male scholars,
speakers, and leaders, largely by women who claim they were
or were almost swindled into “secret marriages.” Other women
have also made some accusations involving sexual harassment.
These male Muslim figures have celebrity status, which has
given rise to the term celebrity shaykh (Arabic for Muslim male
scholar).
Unfortunately, thus far, particularly in the United States, Muslim
community leaders have handled these situations either by
making overly broad and vague accusations such as “sexual
misconduct,” which leaves too much to the imagination, or,
on the other end of the spectrum, results by sweeping the
allegations under the rug without any real investigation.
The problem with vague and broad accusations specifically is
that people cannot determine whether the misconduct could
truly be characterized as spiritual abuse—or any misconduct at
all. The result is confusion and skepticism within the community
at large, which ultimately discredits future victims of spiritual
abuse.
To address this lack of clarity, those who handle such cases,
whether or not they are attorneys, can benefit from using legal
reasoning to address cases of spiritual abuse, even if they are
doing so outside of the courtroom. Those who handle cases
of spiritual abuse must consider many aspects. In my own
experience dealing with these cases, for instance, I have had to
consider social factors, the validity of the evidence and veracity
of the claimants, politics, covert manipulation, and moral issues.
But before I considered anything, I had to define spiritual abuse
and the benchmarks I would use. As an attorney, I found it
most helpful to use my legal reasoning to decrease error in my
analyses.
Introducing Legal Analysis
When one is uncovering cases of spiritual abuse, many
allegations are thrown around, and rumors easily buzz:
“You heard what about Ustadh X?”
“They said that he harassed these women.”
“Harassed… like... wait—rape?!”
“Well, maybe—it’s actually not clear.”
“I heard there was consent… so then there was no
harassment!”
And queue the allegations, the rebuttals, the rebuttals of
the rebuttals, and eventual mudslinging and scandal. All the
while, the main issues are lost, victims are blamed, the alleged
perpetrator is slandered, and on some fronts, the dialogue
focuses on the personalities rather than on addressing the
matters at hand. In the end, most people are confused about
what exactly happened, and the dialogue turns to irrelevant
matters.
Although cases of spiritual abuse usually are handled outside
of the legal system, we all can benefit from legal tools to clearly
address spiritual abuse. One of the most basic legal analytic
tools is called IRAC—Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion.
Generally speaking, defining issues is probably one of the most
underrated and overlooked exercises in debate. Without clearly
defining the issues, one can easily go down a rabbit hole of
irrelevant points in connection with the matter.
So what does IRAC look like? Let’s examine a hypothetical
scenario for the legal claim of negligence.
Consider the following basic fact pattern:
• A driver is texting and driving. In an effort to avoid a
child who unexpectedly runs into the street, the driver
hits and seriously injures an adult pedestrian, who
had slightly wandered onto the road immediately
ahead.
• At trial, an expert witness testifies that, even if the
driver had not been texting, he still would have hit
the pedestrian in the same way. Meanwhile, outside,
angry protesters are blaming a variety of things,
including the driver, for cellphone use while driving
the child’s parents, for not restraining the child the
driver, for “not paying attention” and the pedestrian,
for “not watching where she is going.”
Who is at fault? What are the specific actions at play? Is it
possible that no one is at a fault at all, but that this is simply
a series of unfortunate events? Addressing these questions is
where IRAC is useful in enabling one to clearly and coherently
assess whether the legal claim of negligence is applicable.
The analysis would play out as follows:
• Issue (aka question presented): Does the driver’s use
of his mobile device constitute negligence as to the
pedestrian?
• Rule (aka legal standard): The elements of negligence
are (a) duty of care, (b) breach, (c) causation, and (d)
damages.
This paper’s goal is to
set forth a method for
using legal analysis and
frameworks in evaluating
whether an instance
of spiritual abuse has
occurred…
