19 VOLUME 9 |ISSUE 1 |2018
feel special in the process. The woman agrees to marry the
man and does so, and then learns that this proposal has all
been a façade, and that the shaykh has a history of doing
this with other female students he also reneges on allowing
the marriage to go public. She soon divorces the shaykh and
attempts to seek her rights.2
Let us revisit the hypothetical rule for spiritual abuse proposed
above: “the use of spiritual authority for one’s personal gain.”
There are two elements here: (a) one’s spiritual authority and
(b) personal gain. Both elements must be present. The woman
here would claim that the shaykh used his spiritual authority
by stating that he would connect the woman with inner circles
of spiritual knowledge, and his personal gain was marriage (in
fact, sexual access or otherwise winning the woman).
The shaykh’s defenses would be to disprove one or both
elements. He could theoretically argue that he did not use
his spiritual authority or connections, or that there was no
personal gain. However, in my experience handling such cases,
the perpetrator’s defenses are characterized as affirmative
defenses rather than defeating the initial claim. Such affirmative
defenses include such examples as the plaintiff is “mentally
unstable” “this was simply a case of polygamy gone wrong”
“he was getting to know the woman for marriage” or that
she “consented.” Most of these defenses do not speak to the
elements of the claim at all, and therefore do not defeat the
claim or otherwise absolve the shaykh from his actions. For
example, a woman being mentally unstable (even if that is true)
does not vitiate the claim, all other things being established.
The fact that a spiritual authority is allowed to enter into a
polygamous marriage [in Islam] also does not defeat the claim
and is wholly irrelevant because polygamy is not the issue
presented.
I could write a separate article to address the issue of consent.
Many defendants often cite consent as an affirmative defense
and, therefore, that “there was no abuse.” To analyze consent
as a defense, I can summarize a simple walk-through of this
faulty reasoning as follows: Let us return to the elements of
spiritual abuse: (a) using spiritual authority (b) for personal
gain. Does an accuser’s consent negate the accused’s spiritual
authority? No. Does consent negate that such power was used
for the accused’s personal gain? No. As such, consent must be
an affirmative defense—in other words, a “Yes, but…” defense.
To put it another way, an accuser’s consent is separate from
the accused’s state of mind, which is the concern at hand. To
spell that out, consent as an affirmative defense would be “Yes,
the accused used his spiritual authority for personal gain but
the accuser consented to this arrangement.” This reasoning is
clearly absurd consent here does not vitiate the abuse.
Why a Clear Analysis Matters for Cases of
Spiritual Abuse
Although some people may view certain actions as self-evident
with respect to a claim of spiritual abuse, rarely is a situation
ever that simple. Having a clear analysis of the claims and
potential defenses is important for the following reasons:
(a) Clarity: Because these cases are often contentious
and sensitive, it’s important to avoid parties speaking
past each other. Setting a clear understanding
of claims removes room for doubt regarding the
analyses of the claims, and avoids wasting time
discussing issues and facts that are not relevant.
Further, it is important to distinguish between those
religious figures who use their spiritual authority
to abuse and those whose religious position is only
incidental to misconduct (and therefore, not abuse
of authority). Acknowledging that religious figures
are also imperfect avoids setting up congregants for
disappointment through expectations that religious
figures are perfect.
(b) Due Process: Due process is not merely “innocent
until proven guilty,” but also encompasses the fact
that defendants have a right to know exactly what
the potential claims are against them, so they can
properly defend against those claims. If claims are not
clearly laid out, defendants either will be unable to
defend themselves or will defend themselves using
facts that are not relevant. To ensure that irrelevant
facts are not used to defend against their claims, the
latter point is also important for claimants.
(c) Avoid Discrediting Legitimate Claims: The gravity
of spiritual abuse is unique because it not only
affects one’s worldly state but also may affect one’s
relationship to God and it may even lead people to
suffer existential crises. If we claim spiritual abuse
when that is not the appropriate claim, we risk
diluting the very real and grave cases of spiritual
abuse when they do happen.
(d) Precedent: It is essential to be aware of how such
cases—and their corresponding analyses—may be
used or referenced for future cases. If there is no
coherent analysis at the outset, future cases will only
be more confusing.
(e) Remedies: Remedies often correspond with the crime.
Without clearly articulating the issues and problems
associated with a spiritual-abuse case, determining
If we claim spiritual abuse
when that is not the
appropriate claim, we risk
diluting the very real and
grave cases of spiritual
abuse when they do
happen.
feel special in the process. The woman agrees to marry the
man and does so, and then learns that this proposal has all
been a façade, and that the shaykh has a history of doing
this with other female students he also reneges on allowing
the marriage to go public. She soon divorces the shaykh and
attempts to seek her rights.2
Let us revisit the hypothetical rule for spiritual abuse proposed
above: “the use of spiritual authority for one’s personal gain.”
There are two elements here: (a) one’s spiritual authority and
(b) personal gain. Both elements must be present. The woman
here would claim that the shaykh used his spiritual authority
by stating that he would connect the woman with inner circles
of spiritual knowledge, and his personal gain was marriage (in
fact, sexual access or otherwise winning the woman).
The shaykh’s defenses would be to disprove one or both
elements. He could theoretically argue that he did not use
his spiritual authority or connections, or that there was no
personal gain. However, in my experience handling such cases,
the perpetrator’s defenses are characterized as affirmative
defenses rather than defeating the initial claim. Such affirmative
defenses include such examples as the plaintiff is “mentally
unstable” “this was simply a case of polygamy gone wrong”
“he was getting to know the woman for marriage” or that
she “consented.” Most of these defenses do not speak to the
elements of the claim at all, and therefore do not defeat the
claim or otherwise absolve the shaykh from his actions. For
example, a woman being mentally unstable (even if that is true)
does not vitiate the claim, all other things being established.
The fact that a spiritual authority is allowed to enter into a
polygamous marriage [in Islam] also does not defeat the claim
and is wholly irrelevant because polygamy is not the issue
presented.
I could write a separate article to address the issue of consent.
Many defendants often cite consent as an affirmative defense
and, therefore, that “there was no abuse.” To analyze consent
as a defense, I can summarize a simple walk-through of this
faulty reasoning as follows: Let us return to the elements of
spiritual abuse: (a) using spiritual authority (b) for personal
gain. Does an accuser’s consent negate the accused’s spiritual
authority? No. Does consent negate that such power was used
for the accused’s personal gain? No. As such, consent must be
an affirmative defense—in other words, a “Yes, but…” defense.
To put it another way, an accuser’s consent is separate from
the accused’s state of mind, which is the concern at hand. To
spell that out, consent as an affirmative defense would be “Yes,
the accused used his spiritual authority for personal gain but
the accuser consented to this arrangement.” This reasoning is
clearly absurd consent here does not vitiate the abuse.
Why a Clear Analysis Matters for Cases of
Spiritual Abuse
Although some people may view certain actions as self-evident
with respect to a claim of spiritual abuse, rarely is a situation
ever that simple. Having a clear analysis of the claims and
potential defenses is important for the following reasons:
(a) Clarity: Because these cases are often contentious
and sensitive, it’s important to avoid parties speaking
past each other. Setting a clear understanding
of claims removes room for doubt regarding the
analyses of the claims, and avoids wasting time
discussing issues and facts that are not relevant.
Further, it is important to distinguish between those
religious figures who use their spiritual authority
to abuse and those whose religious position is only
incidental to misconduct (and therefore, not abuse
of authority). Acknowledging that religious figures
are also imperfect avoids setting up congregants for
disappointment through expectations that religious
figures are perfect.
(b) Due Process: Due process is not merely “innocent
until proven guilty,” but also encompasses the fact
that defendants have a right to know exactly what
the potential claims are against them, so they can
properly defend against those claims. If claims are not
clearly laid out, defendants either will be unable to
defend themselves or will defend themselves using
facts that are not relevant. To ensure that irrelevant
facts are not used to defend against their claims, the
latter point is also important for claimants.
(c) Avoid Discrediting Legitimate Claims: The gravity
of spiritual abuse is unique because it not only
affects one’s worldly state but also may affect one’s
relationship to God and it may even lead people to
suffer existential crises. If we claim spiritual abuse
when that is not the appropriate claim, we risk
diluting the very real and grave cases of spiritual
abuse when they do happen.
(d) Precedent: It is essential to be aware of how such
cases—and their corresponding analyses—may be
used or referenced for future cases. If there is no
coherent analysis at the outset, future cases will only
be more confusing.
(e) Remedies: Remedies often correspond with the crime.
Without clearly articulating the issues and problems
associated with a spiritual-abuse case, determining
If we claim spiritual abuse
when that is not the
appropriate claim, we risk
diluting the very real and
grave cases of spiritual
abuse when they do
happen.
