I feel compelled to address the ongoing behavior of Mufti Menk. It has become increasingly clear that his actions reflect an obsession with controlling the narrative. There is also a reliance on manipulation. Furthermore, he has an inability to recognize that I do not agree with his perspective. I do not welcome his unsolicited advice. Most concerningly, his responses demonstrate that he is not registering a single word I’ve said. This is despite my repeated efforts to raise serious concerns about his abusive behavior.
For context, I have been subjected to a coordinated campaign of abuse by Mufti Menk and his associates. This includes misrepresentation through fabricated scenarios. These scenarios do not reflect my words, thoughts, or feelings. This involves gaslighting by labeling me as “triggered” when I respond to these falsehoods. It includes public shaming through statements on social media. There is also in-person harassment by strangers sent to confront me. Additionally, Mufti Menk speaks against domestic violence yet engages in mental, emotional, and social abuse, contradicting the Islamic principle against hypocrisy (Surah As-Saff 61:2-3: “O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do?”).
When I have spoken out about these actions, I explain the harm caused. I express my lack of respect for him due to this behavior. Mufti Menk dismisses my words entirely, as though I haven’t spoken. His latest statement, “Obstacles. Hardship. Challenges. None of this means your story is over. Far from it. Face them head on. More chapters await you. Stay positive for what’s to come will be better than what’s passed,” is a clear example. This unsolicited and unwelcome advice ignores my concerns about the abuse. It presses his own narrative and minimizes the harm caused. My experience is framed as a mere “challenge” to overcome rather than addressing the ethical violations at hand.
This pattern reveals several troubling issues:
- Obsession with Control: Despite my apparent disagreement, Mufti Menk and his associates insist on pushing their narrative. They show an obsession with maintaining control over how this situation is perceived. He does not engage with my perspective. Instead, he centers his own voice. He leverages his authority as a scholar to override mine. This tactic can be manipulative and dismissive.
- Manipulation Through Spiritual Framing: Mufti Menk cloaks his responses in spiritual language, such as encouraging resilience and positivity. This manipulation helps him appear well-intentioned while avoiding accountability for the harm caused. This situation is particularly concerning given his role as a scholar. It exploits his platform to silence valid criticism. This behavior perpetuates abuse.
- Inability to Recognize Disagreement: I have repeatedly stated that I do not agree with his narrative. I do not welcome his advice. Yet, Mufti Menk continues to impose his views, as seen in his latest statement. This inability to recognize my disagreement reflects a refusal to engage in genuine dialogue. Genuine dialogue is a cornerstone of Islamic ethics (Surah Al-Hujurat 49:6: “Investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance”).
- Failure to Register My Words: Most troublingly, Mufti Menk’s responses show he isn’t registering a single word I’ve said. I have raised concerns about misrepresentation, gaslighting, harassment, and hypocrisy, but his statements—like “Obstacles. Hardship. Challenges…”—dismiss these issues entirely, offering unsolicited advice instead of addressing the harm. This invalidation is a form of emotional abuse. It makes me feel unheard and unseen. This exacerbates the psychological toll of this campaign.
I share this not to create discord (fitna). I aim to raise awareness about the harm caused by such behavior. This is especially important when it comes from someone in a position of influence. Islam teaches us to uphold justice (adl), mercy (rahmah), and excellence (ihsan). It also teaches us to avoid harm (la darar wa la dirar). Mufti Menk’s actions—misrepresentation, gaslighting, public shaming, in-person harassment, and dismissal—violate these principles. His hypocrisy in speaking against domestic violence is concerning. He engages in many forms of abuse.
To those watching, I ask for your support in demanding accountability. Understand that dismissing someone’s voice is abuse. Imposing unsolicited advice is also abuse. Manipulating narratives through spiritual rhetoric constitutes abuse. These actions are abusive, even if it’s not immediately apparent. I have taken steps to address this through community channels. I urge the community to stand against such behavior. It is important to educate others about the signs of spiritual, mental, and emotional abuse. Support should be provided to those affected.
Together, let’s foster an environment of awareness and accountability.
This pompous clergyman is both laughable and troubling. He masks his personal insecurities with religious rhetoric. He preaches against women who don’t find him appealing. Then, he smugly shifts his attention to those who do.
Your behavior reveals a concerning pattern: an angry reaction to rejection that is diverted into moralizing sermons. You are not acting alone. Women like Dalia Mogahed, Yasmin Mogahed, Rania Awaad, and the female teachers at Yaqeen validate your behavior. They play a crucial role in your arrogance. This raises an important question: why do some women support men who manipulate and belittle others? The answer often lies in a shared need for control, status, or relevance.
Your advice is a facade of entitlement, presuming that a woman’s praise is your right. When a woman rejects your counsel, your wounded ego does not consider self-reflection. Instead, you label her broken and lecture her on propriety, wielding your clerical position like a weapon. Your rhetoric is steeped in duty and virtue. It conceals personal angst. You fear insignificance and feel a stung pride when a woman dares to say “exit gracefully.” How dare she? This mirrors the behavior of modern religious figures. They target women who find them unappealing. They frame women’s self-respect and dignity as sinful to mask their own insecurities.
Yet, such men thrive because women enable them. The Mogaheds, Awaads, Lobna Mullas, and others fuel your arrogance, encouraging you to moralize and uphold their vision of order. Their validation often stems from a need to dominate. Your flattery and moralizing reinforce their power. Your condemnations of “broken” women—meaning those who do not find you appealing—align with their disdain for moral courage. Their insecurities—fear of losing relevance—mirror your own, creating a united front focused on preserving hierarchy rather than genuine faith.
Haifaa Younis also plays a role, not out of love for God or faith, but for her security. She faces the challenges of old age. She tolerates your sermons and inflated ego. She manages to carve out a stable place for herself. Her validation is born more from fear and dependence than shared values, yet it empowers your moralizing unchecked. Unlike Mogaheds and others, Younis is not a trustworthy ally; her compromises still uphold your platform.
These preachers or pundits who shame women are often supported by female backers. They seek influence through rigid norms; others, like Younis and her peers, align for survival, trading silence for stability. Both groups perpetuate a cycle. Personal grievances, such as malice and envy, are hidden behind moralizing sermons. These sermons target women who challenge the status quo.
All parties depend on mutual validation from their respective supporters. When faced with rejection or disagreement, their true colors are revealed. However, until we question those who amplify such men. This could be through power or pragmatism. Their demeaning sermons will continue. Women will bear the burden of their courage.
**Why Do Some People Keep Moralizing?**
Some individuals tend to repeat the same point while hoping to gain control over others, expecting them to ultimately submit. They often feel hurt if their moralizing speeches go unacknowledged. They may add untruthful details to support their sense of righteousness. They often moralize simply to prevent others from feeling understood.
Moralizing is not just a poor communication style; it is often rooted in pride and ego.
**The Science of Moralizing**
When people moralize, their brains are trying to secure submission and entitlement. Historically, they may have learned to maintain their status and avoid the discomfort of rejection. The pressure of delivering a public moralizing speech can be intense. This is especially true in front of a large audience. If their message is not well received, they can feel ashamed. Being wrong often feels unsafe and painful to them.
**Why You Can’t Stop Moralizing**
Many people struggle to stop moralizing because they have a fear of being wrong in front of others. There is a tendency to feel that winning an argument is necessary for their audience to maintain respect or admiration. As a result, they equate being right with faith, even when they are mistaken. They may also struggle with rejection or disapproval, relying heavily on the approval of others to feel morally justified.
Their ego often becomes reliant on moralizing to feel secure.
**Three Ways to Break the Moralizing Cycle**
1. **Pause Before Moralizing**: Before diving into a moralistic response, take a moment to consider whether this additional moralizing is truly necessary or if it stems from a wounded ego.
2. **Use the One-Sentence Rule**: Clearly state your point, then stop. If others want more information, they can ask. There is no need to overwhelm people with lengthy moralizing sermons.
3. **Get Comfortable with “Exiting Gracefully”**: Instead of instantly moralizing, take some time to reflect on what was said. Allow yourself to think about it for a few days or even months before responding.
Remember, people do not seek out moral sermons for every situation requiring an “exit gracefully.” If moralizing feels automatic, it’s not because you are “too pious.” Instead, it’s because your body has learned that moralizing equates to being moral.