Believing victims has been a healthy step in acknowledging problems of abuse in the world. Like anything positive, if taken to an extreme there is a danger. The danger in this situation lies in presuming the guilt of everyone accused in the name of believing victims. Affirming due process and taking an accuser’s claim seriously, and even “believing” a victim are not mutually exclusive.

It is very difficult for victims to come forward due to social and emotional repercussions. People may think that it’s so easy to accuse someone of sexual abuse but it’s terrifying for victims to open themselves up to a barrage of criticism from others. They can also be re-traumatized by reliving details of the abuse. It also takes a lot more brain power to change a long held perception of a respected religious role model than it does to dismiss an accusation made by a stranger or acquaintance. Even family members dismiss claims by their own daughters, sons, and siblings in favor of leaders they have invested so much in. Shame and self-blame are pervasive among victims, especially in these situations where the perpetrator is someone who is so deeply respected and revered. In the case of a perpetrator who is of religious stature, many also internalize that God is punishing them, and that they are bad Muslims. So the victim blaming, and unnecessary and uninformed public commentary, further compounds those feelings and can severely damage victims’ emotional well-being.

At the same time, a mere accusation of sexual abuse can ruin a person’s life. Even if later proven innocent, the damage is unsalvageable. If we are to just believe that every time someone accused is guilty by mere accusation, we will cause great harm to entire families and communities and it may be based on nothing. This is a hysteria we really have to avoid. A lot of sexual abuse goes unreported, and those who have suffered and kept silent know how hard it is to get justice. But the precept of innocent until proven guilty is inextricable to justice.

When it comes to accusers, the accused, and the facts, different areas of action have their own validation process. Therapists work to validate patients’ thoughts and feelings. That does not necessarily mean they believe the patient was abused; it is just not the place to question the truthfulness of a claim. They operate as if the claim is true, hence believing the victim in their sphere of work. As clinical psychologist Dr. Juhayna Ajami explained to me, “A therapist works with the victim’s experience and symptoms and isn’t concerned with anything else.”

A therapist’s role is not to determine guilt of the alleged perpetrator. Believing the victim’s story does not imply the guilt of the victim’s abuser, as it is a compartmentalized ‘belief’ to help the patient. This does not mean the therapist is humoring the patient’s delusion, because the possibility is very real, however therapy sessions are not the appropriate medium to launch an investigation and resolve the claim.

Validating victims’ experiences in therapy matters greatly for their own well-being. Shame and self-blame are pervasive among victims, especially in these situations where the perpetrator is someone who is so deeply respected and revered. As author of The Empathy Trap, Dr. Jane McGregor told me, “one can offer validation to a client, meaning offer recognition or affirmation that a person or their feelings or opinions are valid, without having to go further than one’s professional jurisdiction and claiming knowledge or evidence of guilt of the person the client accuses.” This matters and shows in Dr. McGregor’s research on the experience of individuals who identified themselves as having been psychologically/emotionally abused. Many participants in the study felt the therapists did not offer validation, but rather made moral judgments and showed disbelief in the stories.

Similarly, an imam or Muslim leader who is informed about abuse cannot adjudicate the claims. There are various reasons for this including lack of authority, lack of competence in this particular field, and liability. However, he or she may validate pain, give some naseeha [advice], and console the one seeking advice. The victim may or may not be believed in every aspect, but the validation, naseeha, and consolation should be given as if the situation is real.

If the same accuser wants to make a public accusation against his or her abuser, the Muslim leader can no longer just believe this person to be a victim as it relates to taking action that presumes guilt of the accused. The area of action has changed, and so has the validation process. Evidence would need to be presented. In the absence of direct evidence (as is often the case), a fact-finding process should take place based on whatever evidence is available.

For incidents that are made public, we cannot expect, nor should we encourage, anyone to assume a specific person’s guilt for a specific act without evidence. At the same time, we should not demonize the accuser nor deem them to be liars. When a victim is being targeted, the last thought is ‘how do I gather evidence to prove that I’m not making this up.’ There is rarely evidence in these cases and where there is, many victims actually delete incriminating emails and text messages because their foremost goal is to end the traumatic experience and return to normalcy, and unfortunately in doing so, they may delete evidence. In other cases, harassment may be on emails for a work account, and if the abuser is an employer, they can terminate the email account with the emails on it. During the incident(s) of harassment, a victim does not always think to forward those emails to a different account or of other ways to preserve them to later on build a case. Perpetrators know this very well and rely on this.

As an aside, victims have asked me why some shaykh or shaykha appeared sympathetic to them, consoled them about their horrific experience with a religious leader, but then continued to conduct programs with that individual. There are many possibilities as we have discussed previously, but one cannot fairly expect a teacher to believe without sufficient proof to the extent of rallying against someone or boycotting. It’s not as simple as ‘another corrupt shaykh aiding in oppression.’ Consoling and being merciful is part of our religion and so is reserving judgment. Believing victims cannot turn into a witch hunt where anyone accused is presumed to be guilty in the name of protecting others; and if proven innocent the slander and suffering the accused suffers is just collateral damage.

We know of incidents from the Quran and hadith of noble men and women being accused and acquitted that should at least encourage us to reserve opinions. All of these instances relate to either fornication or adultery. It is worth mentioning that although they are not the perfect parallel to cases of sexual abuse, they show that accusations alone cannot be cause for judgment and shunning. There are endless analyses and morals that can be drawn but I will be concise.

Quran:

The slander of Aisha (rw) put great stress on her and her entire family. She was a victim of slander and false accusations. Allah cleared her name and censured those who accused her and revealed rules for anyone to be accused of adultery. Allah revealed the first sections of Sura Nur which pertain to slander and adultery among other matters. Maryam (as) is accused of being unchaste. She is a victim of false accusations and slander. She gives birth to Isa (as) and he speaks as an infant to defend the chastity of his mother. Yusuf (as) is accused of trying to seduce Zulaykha. He is imprisoned for the crime and later cleared.

From Sahih Bukhari:

Jurayj was a worshipper of Bani Israel, who was accused of fornication and fathering a child out of wedlock. His worship house was destroyed in reaction to him being accused. The baby born to the accusing woman spoke and cleared Juraryj, and his worship house was rebuilt by the same people. There was a lady suckling her son that made dua that Allah make her son like a man with a great outward appearance that rode by. Her child stopped suckling and prayed that Allah not make him like that man. Then they saw a lady being beaten by a group and accused of fornication and stealing. The mother prayed that Allah not make her son like this woman. The child stopped suckling again and prayed “Oh Allah, do make me like her.” The mother asked her son why he made those prayers, and the baby explained the man was a tyrant so he made dua not to be like him, whereas the woman was accused of fornication and theft but was innocent of that, so he made dua to be like her.

Both men and women, many of whom we revere as examples, have been falsely accused in our primary Islamic sources. Men being falsely accused is as much a reality as women being falsely accused. Each of the above mentioned accused had extremely negative effects due to the false accusations. This is a reminder of how important it is to find your facts or at least reserve judgment of both parties. What we learn is that they were innocent and the ones who accused them were wrong and corrected.

That being said, those who are involved in cases, have evidence, and are trustworthy can warn other organizations to not host certain speakers. This would be akin to mentioning someone drinks alcohol when asked for advice in terms of marriage or doing business with them. It can either be accepted or rejected and should be left as naseeha in the private sphere. If the evidence is rejected, as opposed to being ignored (which does happen) we cannot label these organizations as being complicit or aiding abuse, because the very disagreement is on whether or not the said incident occurred.

The bottom line is that due process and “innocent until proven guilty” does not, and should not, contradict “believing victims.” Affirming an accused’s right to due process should not equate to an inference that an accuser is a liar or otherwise untruthful.

You can contact Danish Qasim directly via Danish@inshaykhsclothing.com.