بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم
قال الله تعالى لا يحب الله الجهر بالسوء من القول إلا من ظلم وكان الله سميعا عليما
We live in bizarre times where the biggest deviant fussaq have appointed themselves as the morality police for the Muslim community. It would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.
We have operatives in the Muslim community who stand for virtually every single fahisha and dhulm — e.g., zina, LGBT, sex-change operations, removal of hijab, collaboration with Zionists and anti-Muslim governmental agencies, etc. — while also claiming to be protectors and guardians of the Muslim community.
This is the Imam Hunting Network.
MuslimSkeptic has covered different parts of this network over the past 3 years. You can read those reports here:
In some of these reports, we discuss FACE: Facing Abuse in Community Environments. But, we have yet to compile a report dedicated to FACE alone. This report serves this purpose.
Some Muslims may be confused about what the problem is with orgs like FACE. They say, yes, orgs like FACE are full of deviants and zanadiqa, but isn’t abuse a real problem? Isn’t accountability important?
The answer to these questions are: Yes, abuse exists in the Muslim community, but what deviants like FACE call “abuse” is not necessarily abuse as defined by Islam. Secondly, yes, accountability is important, but it must come from legitimate Islamic authorities, not the worst of the worst deviants and Simp Imams who themselves openly and frequently flout Islamic ethics.
As we see in this report, FACE considers it “abusive,” for example, when a powerful imam marries a community member who is younger than him. This is “abuse” only according to feminism and feminist legal standards. It is not “abuse” in Islam. But FACE is not concerned with Islamic standards. They are only concerned with feminist #metoo standards.
FACE similarly considers it “abuse” if an imam or community leader has an Islamically valid and mutually consensual nikah with a woman but does not immediately publicize that nikah to the wider Muslim community. FACE’s director, Alia Salem, explicitly says this in a 2019 interview:
“What we should be doing is when you have somebody who is a known and accepted religious leader or even a community leader but specifically religious leader in our community, it does not matter if it was 100% consensual, they made this decision of cognizant, sound mind, that does not remove the power dynamic at play, that does not remove the responsibility that somebody who is entrusted into a position of leadership and shepherding and guiding them to spiritual health and wholeness has 100% more responsibility.”
Again, this is only “abuse” according to feminism and #metoo garbage. In Islam, there is absolutely no problem here.
Now, does MuslimSkeptic deny that an imam could violate a woman’s rights or commit some other dhulm? Of course not. No one denies that this happens (though, at a much smaller frequency than in non-Muslim communities). But the question is, are these cases being handled Islamically with the proper Islamic authorities? And if proper Islamic authorities are not present in a particular community, why is that? Why hasn’t that bigger problem been addressed?
FACE and friends want to bypass all that in order to impose their feminist agenda and cripple the Muslim community accordingly.
The infamous #believeALLwomen hashtag went viral due to the so-called #metoo movement that started in 2017. But this idea that all the accusations of abuse from women should be believed far predates 2017.
The idea that women who make accusations of “abuse” should be automatically believed and regarded as “victims” defies, not only Islamic and even secular ethics, it actually defies basic common sense, not to mention mountains of empirical data and fundamental life experience.
For one to truly “believe all women,” one is required to believe that no women would ever lie about being mistreated. Ever.
Does anyone truly believe that? Does anyone truly believe that no woman would ever lie? Just posing the question is ridiculous.
Yet, we have Imam Hunters who behave as if that is what they truly think, namely, that no woman would ever lie.
It just leaves one dumbfounded to imagine the kind of imbecile who could possibly think this or claim to think this. (Most of them actually don’t believe it but pretend they do, as evidenced by the fact that many of the simps pushing #believeALLwomen have a quick change of heart when a woman accuses them of “misconduct.”)
Consider the most severe type of accusation: Rape.
Countless examples could be given of women lying about being raped for their personal gain. We could, for example, cite a meta-analysis done by Professor Claire Ferguson, which concluded:
The meta-analysis of seven relevant studies shows that confirmed false allegations of sexual assault made to police occur at a significant rate.
In alignment with this conclusion, a 1979 study found that out of 1,198 accusations of rape, nearly 20% were false accusations. Numerous other studies confirm these results: Women making false accusations of being assaulted is not rare. It is actually quite common.
But the most salient example of a false accusation comes from the Quran. The great prophet Yusuf was falsely accused by a woman and her sly deception is recorded in Surah Yusuf as an example for the ages.
So given the reality of female liars, as attested to by the Quran, where does that leave #believeALLwomen?
Clearly, it should be rejected as a bogus principle. We do not believe the claims of women automatically because they might be overtly lying or their accusations might be false for other reasons (they made a mistake, had a false memory, etc.).
In Islam, accusing someone of zina requires four upright male witnesses who give their testimony to official Islamic governmental authorities.
“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient.” [Quran 24:4]
For a third party to accuse someone of zina without meeting that requirement is called qadhf and it has its own hadd punishment in Sharia, as mentioned in the above ayah. Qadhf is one of the major sins in Islam.
Allah says in the Quran, Surat an-Nur 12-16:
“Why, when you heard it, did not the believing men and believing women think good of themselves [i.e., one another] and say, “This is an obvious falsehood”?
“Why did they not produce for it four witnesses? And when they do not produce the witnesses, then it is they, in the sight of Allah, who are the liars.
“And if it had not been for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy in this world and the Hereafter, you would have been touched for that in which you were involved by a great punishment
“When you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge and thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah, tremendous.
“And why, when you heard it, did you not say, “It is not for us to speak of this; Subhan[Allah] this is a great slander”?
These ayat are crystal clear.
Notice that Allah says when you heard it. So as soon as you hear such accusations of sexual misconduct from third parties, your IMMEDIATE reaction is: This is great slander (buhtan adhim). Allah did not say to investigate first, let a neutral party complete a report, etc., and then, after that if the accusation doesn’t hold up, call it slander. Rather, the required immediate response is to denounce it.
There is HUGE wisdom in this.
For one, it protects innocent people from getting their reputations tarnished. If people spread rumors about so-and-so committing immoral actions, that is a bell that cannot be unrung. We see how many men and women’s lives have been destroyed because they were labeled as fornicators, rapists, etc., and then it turned out they were completely innocent. But they can’t get their reputation and honor back. The supreme wisdom of Islam — not found in other religions — is to protect the innocent from this specific type of injury, while directing legitimate claims to official judicial authorities.
On a broader societal level, there is also great wisdom in not spreading hearsay about sexual indiscretion. If people spread accusations of zina, then this will destroy the morale of the community. It will also psychologically prime Muslims into thinking that zina is something that Muslims are secretly engaging in at a high(er) rate, which can make a person more likely to commit zina himself.
Numerous studies in psychology and sociology attest to this reality. People are more inclined to engage in stigmatized behaviors if they believe others are engaged in it, especially if they believe others are secretly engaged in it. This is called “norm perception.”
In the field of applied psychology, researchers and marketing strategists have long theorized how to manipulate norm perception in order to induce desired behavior in a population, such as conserving water, drinking alcohol “more responsibly,” or taking certain pharmaceuticals.
Perhaps the most widespread example of this is with homosexuality. The concept of “being in the closet” or “being on the down low” has been spread through mass media with thousands of articles, new reports, interviews. The idea is that there are countless people who are gay, but they are engaged in gay behavior in secret. Furthermore, they claim that the people who are most opposed to homosexuality are themselves secret homosexuals, i.e., they are hypocrites.
This is a powerful recipe for changing norms, changing psychology, and changing behaviors. This is a big part of the reason for the spread of LGBT fawahish in society.
And this is exactly what Allah says in Surat al-Nur. After the ayat cited above, Allah says:
“Indeed, those who love that fahisha should be spread among those who have believed will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter.” [24:19]
We might wonder: How is spreading rumors and slander (buhtan) about sexual immorality connected to spreading fahisha? The tafasir of this ayah explain that many of those who spread such rumors and accusations do so because they are munafiqin who want to destroy Muslims and get Muslims to engage in exactly those immoral behaviors. Talking about wrong behaviors can induce such behavior, as discussed above.
But Allah tells us exactly how to prevent the munafiq from causing this damage. Simply shut him or her down. Don’t entertain the rumor. Don’t even listen to it. Immediately denounce it as terrible slander.
Another teaching of Islam regarding this is not to advertise one’s private sins. The Prophet ﷺ said:
“All of my ummah will be forgiven except those who sin openly. It is a part of sinning openly when a man does something at night, then the following morning when Allah has concealed his sin, he says, ‘O So and so, I did such and such last night,’ when all night his Lord has concealed him and the next morning he uncovers what Allah had concealed.” [Bukhari and Muslim]
Again, we see the same wisdom. By talking about the private sin, one is contributing to normalizing the behavior by chipping away at the perceived stigma. Someone might be doing this intentionally — in order to get others to fall into his sin so he doesn’t feel bad about it — or unintentionally. Either way, the damaging effect is the same.
What we can also understand is that those hypocrites that love to see fahisha spread in the Muslim community would strategically go after those who are seen as religious figures and upholders of religious morality. Basically, they would target those Muslims who are prominent and known as pious and upright Muslims.
This is why we should call them “Imam Hunters.”
This is exactly what happened in the case of al-Ifk, where hypocrites accused Aisha, may Allah be please with her, of committing zina. They targeted the wife of the Prophet ﷺ deliberately.
Hypocrites know that their aim of spreading fahisha is best served by dragging the names of prominent pious people through the mud. Some of the hypocrites themselves may be engaged in fahisha and, as a way to cope with their own self-loathing, try to pull others down onto their level. Others want to normalize fahisha and destroy its stigma, so that their own misdeeds will not be looked down upon.
There are deep psychological mechanisms behind this fitna mongering.
It must also be noted:
It is qadhf and haram for third parties to spread accusations and speak as if the accusations are true. How would a third party know that the accusations are true? The only legitimate way to know is through four upright male witnesses or an unambiguous confession (and even that has conditions).
This is important because as we have seen, feminist fitna mongers and #metoo muftis “advocate” on behalf of what they call “victims” by spreading accusations of zina and sexual misconduct. THIS IS QADHF and these feminist orgs and their male enablers (simps) would be liable for hadd lashing by an Islamic government.
“But what if my favorite celebrity imam confirmed it?”
That is still qadhf.
“But what if I talked to a really trustworthy friend/family member and he said it was true?”
That is still qadhf.
“But what if a mufti I know said he has lots of evidence and knows many cases?”
That is still qadhf.
“But what if MuslimMatters wrote a really serious article about it and a bunch of Compassionate Imams and pro-LGBT shaykhaz signed it?”
That is still qadhf.
This is not some “minority” opinion, by the way. All schools of fiqh are unanimous. This is because the Quran is unequivocal on the issue and the sirah further clarifies the matter.
Now what about those who spy on Muslims, pry into their private lives to get information about their intimate relationships?
This is also haram by consensus and counts as tajassus (spying).
Some fools might argue that the community should be allowed to “look into” the private lives of imams and scholars because “they are held to a higher standard.” This is an absolutely moronic claim that has no basis in any part of the Sharia.
These imbeciles will try to argue by mentioning the high standards set for hadith narration. If a particular narrator was seen to act unethically, ahadith narrated from him would be deemed less reliable. This is the science of Jarh wa Ta`dil: criticism of hadith narrators.
But you will never find a criticism of a hadith narrator concerning what happened in his private home. You will never see a hadith narrator accused of sexual misconduct because he was being spied on in his private affairs. There is no such thing because the scholars of hadith did not entertain qadhf or tajassus. They were actual scholars, not the half-wits of today who simp for feminists.
Note: For the those who wonder how the four witness requirement applies to cases of rape, read this explanation from Mufti Zameelur Rahman.
Imam Hunters like FACE know very well that people have a cognitive bias. When people in general hear about some major misdeed that someone allegedly committed, even if they don’t believe in 100% of the accusation, they still believe that there must be something wrong with that person. After all, where there is smoke, there must be fire. If the person were completely innocent, why would there be such big accusations made against him? If there isn’t a fire, why would there be smoke?
This cognitive bias is taken advantage of by Imam Hunters and fitna mongers, in general. They make sure to inflate their accusations as big as possible. But this can create legal liability and generate libel suits, so what the Imam Hunters do is make their smear campaign vague.
They say things like, “The imam engaged in inappropriate interactions with women.” Or, “The imam was abusive toward many people.” Or, “The imam engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct.”
These are all vague. A “secret” marriage according to these deviants is abusive and sexually inappropriate according to their feminist #metoo ideology, even though such a marriage is 100% valid in Islam, no matter what the Simp Imams say. So the Imam Hunters use these vague terms to smear their targets knowing that onlookers will imagine the worst, i.e., rape, prostitution, etc.
This is yet another wisdom why spreading rumors of sexual matters, no matter how credible they may sound to you, is strictly forbidden in Islam, is a major sin, and is punished with 80 lashes.
FACE: Facing Abuse in Community Environments is the sister organization of HEART: Women and Girls. For those not aware, HEART is a proudly pro-LGBT organization that pushes Muslims to commit zina, homosexual acts, gender transition, masturbation, etc.
They are sister organizations in the sense that they have shared the same “scholarly” advisers in the past, e.g., Omer Mozaffar, Ingrid Mattson, and others. They also cross-promote each others garbage. They also share the same love and support for homosexuality and transgenderism.
Most notably, they also share the same blatant disregard for Islamic guidelines on public accusations and, instead, uphold feminist #metoo philosophy.
A direct line can be drawn from HEART to FACE via Omer Mozaffar.
Mozaffar is a chaplain at a college in Illinois. We have reported on his infiltration of the Muslim community in the past, particularly his role in organizing an “unprecedented” LGBT iftar and his work with Zionist organizations like the Muslim Leadership Initiative.
Mozaffar left HEART after divorcing Samar Kaukab, a former director of HEART. He immediately began supporting the newly launched FACE in 2018.
FACE was founded in Dallas by former CAIR-Dallas director Alia Salem and Aman Ali. FACE’s origin in Dallas is significant because its founding was connected to the attack on Dallas-based Nouman Ali Khan. Mozaffar made himself the center of this manufactured scandal by publishing vague and slanderous accusations of “sexual misconduct” against Khan on Facebook on Sept. 24, 2017.
As was revealed through a public lawsuit as well as other public documentation, certain activist figures were working against Nouman Ali Khan and spreading baseless accusations of “sexual misconduct” against him. The central figure involved working closely with Mozaffar was Omar Suleiman. Khan later filed a lawsuit against Suleiman for financial fraud, defamation, and other charges.
To this day, there has been zero valid evidence that NAK did anything abusive or unethical, much less engaged in “sexual misconduct.” But the manufacturers of the scandal, including FACE and their celebrity backers, have seen no accountability for their irresponsible slander and overall violation of clear Islamic principles regarding accusations of sexual misbehavior and rumor mongering.
Significantly, FACE was launched literally within days of Mozaffar’s public slander against NAK.
Now, who are the activists behind FACE?
Besides comedian Aman Ali (discussed below), the other original co-founder of FACE is Alia Salem. Salem seems to run FACE like a dictator. It is her organization and everyone else is required to fall in line.
Salem is very open about her views on social media. But unlike others, Salem divulges her beliefs and motives to non-Muslim news reporters as well.
Salem has numerous times expressed and demonstrated her strong commitment to collaborating with LGBT fahisha activists and organizations. When she is not “holding imams accountable,” FACE co-founder Alia Salem is “working on common ground” with LGBT groups and expressing support for “gay liberation” movements in the Muslim world.
In 2016, local news covered her meeting with Texas LGBT groups to “work on common ground.” In her interview, Salem urges Muslim leaders and the community as a whole to not shy away from supporting LGBT rights and to “take a stand and stand with them.”
In another interview, Salem throws the Muslim community under the bus for “lack of understanding” of the LGBT community. She says:
“It’s really important for those of us from a variety of traditions who may have a lack of exposure, a lack of understanding to the communities we are distanced from, including the LGBT community,” said Salem. “It’s important that we sit down together and start to learn from one another.” Salem says she’s connected with the Resource Center in Dallas [LGBT group] to work together more often.”
According to Salem, Muslims need to sit down and work with modern-day Qawm Lut and also “learn from” them. What exactly do Muslims need to learn from Qawm Lut, Alia? Please, Alia, tell us, what valuable lessons about man-on-man rectal penetration and sex-change operations do Muslims need to learn?
Most shockingly, in that same interview, Salem expresses her belief that LGBT movements “fighting for gay rights” in Muslim majority countries can learn from her approach and the approach of her “leaders” in how to “work with” and “learn from” the LGBT community.
“She also said she believes that movements in Muslim majority countries overseas fighting for gay rights likely see how American Muslim leaders are responding.”
Salem made these shocking comments in 2016, while attending and speaking at an LGBT candlelight vigil in honor of a gay night club shooting.
In another article titled What It Means to Be Young, Muslim, and Gay in the Wake of Orlando, Alia shared her insight on gay Muslim youth:
According to Alia Salem, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the phenomenon of “otherization” has an impact on all young Muslims, gay and straight, growing up in an increasingly turbulent world. […]
“Signs are showing that there is a sense of not belonging to our society,” Salem said. “There’s a pendulum swing where either youth may turn towards the Muslim community for shelter to block out the negativity, and that isolation from society is not good long term. Then on the other hand, you also have Muslim youth who pull away from the community and try to shed their Muslim identity to find belonging.”
Beyond her celebration of modern-day Qawm Lut, Alia Salem has made the idea of #metoo feminist activism an explicit component of her work at FACE, even going so far as flying to New York to collaborate with the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and other feminist religious groups. Alia calls the freak amalgamation of #metoo and Muslim deviants: #MosqueMeToo.
Yes, let’s start an uncomfortable conversation about the sheer amount of fahisha and fitna FACE and friends have been promoting.
As a community, we should ask: How much of the UN’s secular feminist understanding of women’s rights dictates FACE’s methodologies and overall outlook?
Putting aside all the LGBT, zina, and sex work promotion from FACE’s founders, how can the Muslim community trust a group that works with an international organization, the UN, that has done so much harm to Muslims around the world and regularly condemns Muslim countries for following the Sharia as “violating human rights”?
Thankfully, the community is not eager to bring the UN or FACE into their local masajid.
FACE was co-founded by Alia Salem and Aman Ali. But, as mentioned, Alia is apparently running the show with an iron fist. Her minions seem to walk around her like they’re walking on eggshells. Nonetheless, these minions are just as deviant as Alia herself.
Aman Ali is also extremely pro-LGBT. On numerous occasions on his Facebook page, he has demanded that Muslims support “LGBT rights” and that the Muslim community accommodate and make space for “LGBT Muslims.”
In one particularly emotional post, Ali makes his fervent support of LGBT crystal clear. He says:
I used to be afraid to support gay rights. […] Thankfully that was over 10 years ago, and I’m much older, wiser and balder (sigh). And throughout my travels I’ve had conversations with hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people around the world who identify as LGBTQ. And I use the word “people who identify as” because they’re people first and foremost – something we often forget about when we get into childish arguments.
I stand in steadfast support with the LGBTQ community – whether you are Muslim, non-Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, whatever your spirituality is. Life is too short to have anger and hate towards people simply because of who you are.
This zindiq who boasts about meeting and socializing with thousands of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders around the world wants to hold imams and ulama “accountable.” Is this some sick joke?
Also significantly, Aman Ali spells out his philosophy for holding Muslim religious leaders accountable. He expressed this philosophy when news came out that Tariq Ramadan was accused by multiple women of rape.
According to Ali, whoever makes an accusation is automatically a victim and those accusations should automatically be taken as true. As he puts it: “What. Else. Do. You. Need.”
How about an investigation? Or evidence? Maybe upright witnesses? Maybe a fair trial? Are any of those things needed, Aman, before condemning a man as a serial rapist? Are these FACE’s standards?
It is important to note that, eventually, all the rape allegations against Ramadan were false, the charges against him were dropped, and his accusers turned out to be French Islamophobes conspiring to destroy his reputation. This report contains all the details of this shocking but sadly common case of conspiracy to take down a Muslim figure through false accusations.
Yet, Aman Ali has yet to retract his slander of Ramadan as a serial rapist.
Alia Salem’s top minion is Sara Bawany.
Why isn’t Alia Salem’s relationship with the younger Bawany not considered grooming?
Isn’t Salem grooming Bawany since Salem is more powerful? Isn’t Bawany being indoctrinated by a older religious figure? Why doesn’t this count as spiritual abuse?
Bawany is a big supporter of transgender rights.
Suleiman is not officially associated with FACE. But as we saw above, he has appeared several times alongside filthy scandal monger, Aman Ali.
More than any other religious figure or imam, Suleiman has extensively worked with Alia Salem in the past and praised her in public.
She was there speaking alongside Omar Suleiman, as token Muslims showing solidarity with LGBT. This was the same LGBT candlelight vigil where Suleiman said:
“We are determined to cry together, to pray together, to stand together – straight, gay, Floridian and Texan.”
Beyond speaking at candlelight vigils in memory of gay night club attendees, Omar Suleiman and Alia Salem have joined forces on numerous occasions, all documented by local and national news sources. In this article, for example, they are quoted together as if they are a team.
We have already reported on Imam Omar Suleiman’s repeated, insistent collaboration with LGBT-promoting activists and his close association with fahisha promoters, CVE architects, reformists, and anti-Sharia politicians.
But the question must be repeated here:
Why does Omar Suleiman have such an extensive history working side-by-side with this LGBT-promoting fitna monger Alia Salem — a fitna monger who founded an organization dedicated to “holding religious leaders accountable” at the same exact time Suleiman was launching his attack against another celebrity daee?
Why is he traveling with her around the country to numerous events? What does Omar Suleiman think about Salem’s activities and the activities of FACE? Does he approve?
More importantly: Are you, Omar Suleiman, in any way assisting FACE? Are you calling mosques around the country telling them to trust Alia Salem and encouraging them to work with her?
Now is the time to come clean, Omar.
Of course, Suleiman has not publicly supported FACE despite his support of and work with Salem. Feminists might wonder why their favorite Unfit Imam Suleiman doesn’t use his influence and reach to publicly boost the fledgling FACE. Could it be because he doesn’t want to further tarnish his reputation by being publicly tied to such filthy organizations?
In a 2019 interview about FACE, Salem expresses her frustration with imams who privately support her org but refuse to lend their prominence publicly:
Figures of authority within the Muslim community applaud their work, just not publicly, she says. I reached out to multiple imams in the community, and though they believe spiritual abuse is an issue, they were concerned with being tied to a specific organization and provided no comment.
Hmm… we have to wonder if this is referring to Omar Suleiman…
Regardless, it speaks volumes when the one imam who is in the best position to recognize the merit of FACE — because he has on numerous occasions worked with and praised its founder, Alia Salem — refuses to publicly endorse the organization.
It’s because they have no merit.
Yasin is an attorney who formerly worked with FACE before a sudden departure under questionable circumstances. To understand the underlying feminist philosophy behind FACE, we only need to read Yasin’s direct words, published for The Hill.
She starts her op-ed by describing pedophilia and sexual abuse from Catholic bishops and other Christian religious figures and how the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, etc., shielded the perpetrators of those crimes from accountability.
Then, without any evidence or data, Yasin asserts that the Muslim community suffers from the same problems!
As Muslims, we struggle with the same issues and power dynamics that have impacted all other faith-based communities. Abuse is neither faith nor race-specific; it is a human problem that is revealing itself to be ubiquitous.
This blatant lie appears often in the work of liberal feminists, like Yasin and the MeToo Mufti Abdullah Nana we have reported on previously.
In reality, Muslims are NOT the same as kuffar and our ulama and imams are not like the kafir religious leaders of other communities. Though it may be difficult for those Muslims steeped in liberal feminist ideology to understand, Islam makes a difference. The guidance of the Quran and Sunna make a difference. This does not mean that it is impossible for a Muslim figure to be abusive. But the number of real Muslim abusers is far fewer than kafir abusers whose entire moral framework is based on falsehood. But those Muslims who have internalized secularism will angrily reject this because, for them, iman and Islam are irrelevant and ineffective in preventing believers from falling into the fasad and fahisha that kuffar fall into, thereby reducing the overall statistics of abuse in the Muslim community compared to others.
Sadly it is fashionable for “woke” Muslims like Yasin to downplay Islam, downplay the idea that the Ummah is unique by virtue of its belief, as Allah emphasizes constantly in the Quran, and pander to the liberal religious universalism of, “We are all the same, we are all equals, no religion is morally superior,” etc.
After slandering the Muslim community and throwing us collectively under the bus, Yasin proceeds to spell out her methodology for holding abusers accountable.
Victims of abuse must be given a space to be heard, to be believed, and to be vindicated. The perpetrator must be publicly named to prevent his or her ability to reinvent an identity in a different institution. The specifics of the conduct need to be transparent to provide notice for both the community and potential perpetrators that this conduct will not be tolerated.
Let’s break down her stated process for “investigation.”
- Step 1: Victims are given space to be heard.
- Step 2: Victims are believed.
- Step 3: Victims are vindicated.
- Step 4: The perpetrator is publicly named and the details of the abuse advertised.
Wow, that is a very streamlined process. No time to actually verify the truth or ascertain whether what an accuser says is factual or not. No time for evidence or upright witnesses, testimony and counter-testimony. No time for the accused to deny the accusations or defend himself. No time, really, for anything that Islam (or any other standard of justice) requires. All that is necessary before publicly blasting an imam as a “sexual predator” and ruining his reputation, his career, possibly his entire worldly life, is meeting the standards of #metoo feminism.
Beyond op-eds, Yasin makes her allegiances to debased feminist standards of injustice clear. In one post, she repeatedly writes the #metoo slogan, “I believe her.” And then to underline the insanity of the slogan, she writes, “No analysis to the contrary will ever EVER change that.”
This is FACE’s approach to “accountability” laid bare. No investigation, no analysis, no evidence, no nothing can change the fact that when a woman claims to be abused, she is in fact abused.
In this feminist alternative reality FACE operates in, women never misremember, lie, or otherwise distort facts for personal gain. And Islam as a standard for justice doesn’t seem to exist either.
FACE’s Board Secretary is Ramon Mejia. Mejia is another open and passionate advocate for LGBT and feminism, i.e., FACE’s bread and butter.
Poor Ramon is soo sad that no one cares about the work of FACE. Maybe because the work is trash? Have you considered that, Ramon?
Here we see a proud employee of FACE contemplate mandatory sterilization of all men because the government isn’t paying promiscuous women enough for their abortions.
FACE has proven its dangerous incompetence on more than one occasion. In November of 2018, an employee at a Dallas-based masjid gave a fiery khutbah about “child molestation” being covered up by the masjid board. The khutbah created mass hysteria and confusion in the community, who now feared that their children were being molested en masse at the masjid.
FACE quickly threw gasoline on the fire by disseminating video of the khutbah on their Facebook page, amplifying the chaos and, in effect, creating an international scandal. Even Islamophobes picked up on the story and used it to blast masajid generally as “hiding sex abuse” and portraying imams as generally being child molesters.
Later, after recovering from their initial shock and anger, masjid community members recalled that, during the khutbah, the khatib admitted that he had only heard second-hand rumors about this alleged “coverup” and he hadn’t actually confirmed anything.
The masjid board itself quickly issued a statement, clarifying that there was no cover up and there was no “child molestation.” In fact the masjid had investigated the alleged incident with the involvement of the children’s parents and there was zero indication of criminal activity or sexual misconduct. What had been blasted by the confused khatib and then FACE as “child molestation” had only been an elderly man visiting from overseas who had kissed a 16-year-old teenager and a 10-year-old boy on the cheek in greeting them.
Later, the masjid board invited the local police chief to give a workshop on what is real sexual molestation of a child and when the law requires police reporting. Rather than condemn the masjid for “covering up” abuse, the police chief confirmed the legality of the board’s actions.
To this day, however, FACE has not retracted their slander in accusing the masjid of “mishandling” child sex abuse and covering up criminal activity. This shows the contempt FACE has for local masajid and their willingness to manufacture scandal so that they can prop themselves up as “saviors” for the Muslim community, sweeping in to “handle abuse” and “hold religious leadership accountable.”
It also shows their #MosqueMeToo feminist philosophy in action. In this case, it wasn’t even a person claiming to be abused. Rather, it was a third party spreading unconfirmed rumors about abuse. Even that was enough for FACE to sound the alarm and shout “Abuse!” from the rooftops, plunging a masjid community into the chaos of confusion, anger, fear, and disgust, not to mention, unjustly tarnishing masjid board members as accessories to child molestation!
This is the very definition of fitna mongering.
To understand how FACE operates, it is instructive to look at the biggest “report” they have published to date regarding the alleged “sexual misconduct” of a Dallas imam.
For the sake of argument, let’s put aside the glaring fact that FACE’s entire approach to “investigating abuse” is completely Islamically invalid and amounts to the kind of slander, qadhf, namima, rumor mongering, and tale-bearing that is condemned in Islam in no uncertain terms. The Islamic system of true religious authorities bringing real abusers to justice and holding them accountable bears no resemblance to the fitna circus FACE, HEART, Hurma, MeToo Muftis, and others have vomited onto the Muslim community.
So, putting aside all that and looking at the report they published, it becomes immediately obvious how bogus their “process” really is.
First, the report begins by claiming the imam abused his power for “sexual exploitation” and “sexual gain.” Does this mean the imam committed zina? Did he have sex with a woman outside of marriage? The report explicitly denies this and states:
To be clear, this is not a legal document or a criminal allegation of zina.
But then, the report later does describe the “principal violation” as sexual intercourse. So, was that zina or not?
If it was not zina, the only logical possibility was that the imam and the woman in question were religiously married and, thus, their sexual relationship was Islamically permissible.
In all likelihood, FACE deliberately denied accusing the imam of zina because they knew that he was religiously married to the “victim” and, therefore, the community would reject that he committed “sexual misconduct.” Also, FACE probably avoided the accusation of zina because they knew the community is well aware that four upright male witnesses are needed for such an accusation, as Allah explicitly states in the Quran. As mentioned above, to accuse someone of zina without four witnesses bearing testimony to the act is itself a major crime in Islam called qadhf, and comes with its own hadd punishment of 80 lashes, again, as mentioned in the Quran.
So FACE is simply playing word games by creating a non-existent third category of sexual behavior that is “illicit sexual intercourse” but is not zina. It’s as if FACE thinks that not actually using the word “zina” in their accusation absolves them of the responsibility of producing four witnesses or any other evidence for that matter.
When FACE published the report, numerous community members objected to this not-so-clever subterfuge. FACE responded to these objections in a “Community Announcement“:
4. YOU NEED FOUR WITNESSES TO MAKE ALLEGATIONS OF ZINA. WHERE ARE THE FOUR WITNESSES?
FACE is not making an allegation of zina. 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 [the imam] 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.
In other words, FACE thinks that they can accuse an imam of illicit sexual intercourse without the Islamic requirement of four witnesses as long as they don’t explicitly call it zina. All they need as evidence to establish that an imam is a sexual predator engaging in “sexual misconduct” and blast that to the world is the following:
- The accuser claims he admitted to it.
- The accuser’s mother claims he admitted to it.
- The accuser’s stepfather claims he admitted to it.
- The accuser’s lawyer claims he admitted to it.
Case closed! Illicit sexual intercourse (that is somehow not zina) confirmed! Because obviously, as the brilliant activists at FACE must know, the accuser, the accuser’s mother, stepfather, and lawyer have zero conflict of interest in relaying facts about the case. And even if they did, we must always “believe her” and “What. Else. Do. You. Need,” etc., as Huma Yasin and Aman Ali so eloquently put it.
This would be a sad joke if it weren’t such a perversion of justice.
The other word game the report plays is by claiming that the “victim” could not “meaningfully consent.” Does this mean that this was an act of rape? If there was no consent, that means the imam in question is a rapist.
But, of course, that is not what they allege. The “victim,” a mature woman around 20 years of age, admits to doing things of her own will and volition. So even if what she claims to have happened did happen, then she is just as culpable. She is just as responsible Islamically.
But, as we have seen, FACE is not concerned about Islam. Feminist ideology dictates their standards, and according to feminism, no woman can ever provide “meaningful consent” to an older, more powerful man. Any man engaged in a relationship with a younger and less powerful women is necessarily “grooming” her and, hence, abusing her.
This is the #metoo ideology and it is clear how contrary to Islam it is. One only needs to reflect on the marriages of the Prophet ﷺ. All his marriages would be considered abusive by feminist standards.
Feminism has essentially created a way for women to engage in consensual relationships with powerful, influential men that they benefit from and then avoid any accountability or cost if that relationship goes sour by claiming abuse. In this way, women enjoy all of the benefits of marrying powerful, influential men with none of the risk. This is the abject misandry that FACE and their sister organizations want to impose on the Muslim community.
What makes FACE’s report even more grotesque is how they refused to even consider the imam’s side of the story. The report states matter-of-factly, “FACE did not deem any comment from [the imam] necessary.”
What kind of sham investigation not only refuses to consider both sides but refuses to even hear both sides?
Another telling statement from the report is where FACE admits that it only includes details in the report they “deemed relevant.” They also reveal that their standard for verifying a claim is that, as long as no one gives a statement contradicting that claim, then that claim is considered “corroborated information”!
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.
Just pause for a moment to recognize the sheer audacity of this. Is this what truth means? Is this what justice means? Anyone can claim anything and as long as there are no conflicting statements from anyone else, then we take that claim as truth?
The insanity of this is really magnified when its coupled with the fact that they refused to even hear the imam’s side of the story. So, of course there will be no contradictions to conflict with the claims of the accuser! Basically, the methodology FACE details in their report is nothing more than a convoluted way of restating, “Believe all women.”
Another wrinkle to this story. Nouman Ali Khan is included in this imam’s report. NAK was the president of the masjid where this imam was employed. The report depicts NAK as “brushing the abuse under the rug” and “shielding a predator.”
NAK himself took great umbrage to this and publicly called out FACE on their Facebook page with a lengthy condemnation of their methodology. He noted that several critical parts of the report were completely false and that there were masjid records proving that. He also noted how Alia Salem told him directly that she would not issue a retraction or correction of mistakes and that no amount of evidence or testimony would change that. In the end, NAK concludes that, “FACE’s agenda has little to do with accurately and factually describing events.” The irony is that FACE makes this explicit themselves in their, “Believe all women no matter what” approach, as we have seen.
And the final point we will make about this egregious report is that it admits the vast majority of its “corroborated information” is from second- and third-hand sources. Salem doesn’t even pretend to verify any of the claims anyone makes.
Furthermore, FACE didn’t even bother to talk to two out of the three alleged “victims.” As the report reluctantly admits, one of the alleged victims, Jane Doe 2, refuses to speak to FACE. And the third alleged victim, Jane Doe 3, is not even known!
Here, the report admits that Salem did not even speak to the “victim” directly. According to the report, this is because the family wanted to avoid further trauma. Or maybe it’s because the family doesn’t trust rabid scandal mongers meddling in their lives and dredging up past marriages?
Salem doesn’t even know who Jane Doe 3 is or even if she exists, but still depicts her as a “victim” for the sole reason that some anonymous person claims she was a second wife for the imam in a “secret marriage.” What is a “secret marriage,” according to Salem? She characterizes it as a marriage where there are witnesses and it is a valid nikah, but the wider congregation at the masjid is not aware of the marriage.
First of all, where in Islam or any work of fiqh is there a requirement to inform a specific masjid of one’s marriage? There is no such requirement in Islam, but that doesn’t stop FACE from depicting this third unknown woman a “victim of abuse,” without knowing anything about her or even if she exists.
Second of all, let’s pretend that for a marriage to be valid, everyone at one’s masjid needs to be informed. Did Salem confirm that the imam’s community was unaware of his second marriage? Or did she just accept whatever one anonymous person from that community remembers about what happened 20 year ago?
And just because the masjid has a nonsense policy against second wives, should we consider an imam to be a “predator” just because he violates such a bogus policy? Why is that policy there in the first place? Why are masajid trying to dictate the personal lives of imams?
So to recap, this report portrays a respected imam as a “serial predator” based on three relationships. All three of the relationships are marriages with mature women, as FACE either explicitly acknowledges (in the case of Jane Doe 2 and 3) or strongly implies (in the case of Jane Doe 1).
FACE is counting on the Muslim community to not read their trash report in detail to scrutinize their dishonest language. They are counting on people just seeing the headline of the report and making a judgment immediately. This is their strategy of qadhf and destroying reputations.
Given all this blatant disregard for the truth and Islamic ethics on the organizational level as well as the personal level, it is obvious that FACE has nothing to do with Islam, and they clearly have no respect for the most basic values of Islam.
But, perhaps not unsurprisingly, FACE admits this themselves. In their 2018 Community Announcement, they state:
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.
Notice how they slyly avoid answering the question about polygamy, leaving open the possibility that, yes, indeed, they are “coming after anyone who has more than one wife.”
The fact that they avoid giving their position on polygamy is highly revealing in itself. Why couldn’t they state the truth, namely, that a man having more than one wife is Islamically permissible? Do they not say that because they don’t believe it?
FACE’s position on polygamy is ultimately moot, however, because they admit outright that they are “not a religious institution.” You have to marvel at the brazenness of these fitna mongers. It’s become a cliche nowadays for Muslim-run organizations that want to violate Islamic principles to give the disclaimer that they are “not a religious organization,” as if that makes their promotion of haram any less wrong.
But the absurdity of this is amplified by the fact that FACE claims to hold imams to an ethical standard. That’s what “accountability” means, after all. So what ethical standard is this? If it is not a religious one, i.e., an Islamic standard of ethics, then what is it?
Of course, we all know that it is liberal feminism. They are very open about their allegiances. They all but explicitly are telling the community that imams and the community as a whole must abide by feminist gynocentrism and, if anyone steps out of line, FACE will be there to drop the hammer.
Which figures joined Mozaffar, immediately jumping at the opportunity to publicly promote FACE to the unsuspecting Muslim community?
MLI Zionist shill Rabia Chaudry was one of the first vocal proponents of her good friends at FACE.
In September 2017, Tamara Gray quickly began promoting FACE and calling them leaders. Did she not take a moment to investigate who founded this group and what they were involved in? Or was she aware and promoted them anyway?
Gray has promoted FACE ever since, and praised Alia Salem by name for her “courage” and “vision.” Does Tamara Gray, who considers herself a religious scholar (try not to laugh), think that what Alia Salem, Aman Ali, and the rest of the FACE team stand for is Islamically permissible? Does she think their methods are grounded in Islamic principles? How could someone claiming to be a “shaykha” irresponsibly promote a group like FACE and even foist them onto the community as “leaders”?
Ingrid Mattson, of course, also expressed her excitement for pro-LGBT activists launching yet another org to police imams.
Upon launching, FACE founders also informed their close allies about their new org. Who are these allies? Extreme zina-normalizing, trans-loving feminists.
These feminists have a notorious 5000-member Facebook group literally called FITNA, which stands for Feminist Islamic Troublemakers of North America. This is the same group that regularly features apostates talking about how they “have the right” to criticize the Prophet ﷺ and how prohibiting zina is “zinaphobia.”
These are the people FACE is keen to inform about their work.
Many of the cases that FACE takes up simply involve advocacy for disgruntled ex-wives.
These are ex-wives married to prominent imams or community leaders who, for one reason or another, feel they have been mistreated. Rather than take their case to legitimate Islamic authorities, these bitter women go to feminist advocates like FACE. Many of these ex-wives know that they have no legal case and would be kicked out of both an Islamic court and even secular court (which is quite telling given how pro-feminist these secular courts are).
So they plan to destroy their former husband’s reputation in the court of public opinion.
They go to Twitter and Facebook and cry “Abuse!” and “Trauma!” to an audience of white knight simps and feminists who “Believe All Women.” FACE then weaponizes the unverified, unsubstantiated accusations of these women by creating “reports” that have all the appearances of official, objective reporting, but in reality, are nothing but the accusations of the ex-wives dressed up in formal language.
Finally, FACE then uses a few key contacts in mainstream media to spread their libel far and wide.
Eventually, in sha Allah, a windfall of defamation lawsuits against FACE may end their organization once and for all. For now and into the future, we trust in Allah to deal with their evil.
There is not much that can be said to fitna mongers who care little for Islamic ethics. These fussaq would be lashed for their repeated qadhf under a proper Islamic governing system. But in these sad times without the full implementation of Sharia, we can only warn the believers against the shayatin.
Allah protect us all.