By Dr. Yusuf Malik Frederick, PhD | Black Crescent Wellness Foundation
Authoritarianism often masquerades as orthodoxy in religious communities across the Western world. Defined by strict adherence to dogma, rigid hierarchical structures, and the suppression of interpretive plurality, religious authoritarianism plays a critical role in fostering spiritual abuse (SA). Far from being an issue confined to fringe sects, authoritarian dynamics can thrive within mainstream faith traditions, particularly when doctrinal inflexibility is paired with patriarchal leadership and epistemic exclusion.
What Is Religious Authoritarianism?
Religious authoritarianism can be broadly understood as a system of belief and practice in which a central authority—often male and elite—dictates theological interpretations, acceptable modes of spiritual expression, and community behavior. These systems thrive on obedience, suppress dissent, and privilege certain voices over others, especially in gendered and racialized terms (Kidd, 2017).
The combined effects of toxic teachings, patriarchal governance, and closed epistemologies result in a context where victims of abuse are often gaslighted into silence. These victims are not simply unheard—they are made to feel that their suffering is a religious test or divine decree. In such an environment, theological constructs are weaponized, leading to what Fricker (2007) calls hermeneutical injustice, wherein individuals lack the collective resources to make sense of their experiences.
The Gendered Face of Authoritarian Harm
Religious authoritarianism disproportionately affects women and children, who are often the least empowered within these hierarchies. Muslim women in particular face a dual burden: doctrinal expectations that demand obedience and a broader sociocultural narrative that questions their agency. Ahmad and Patterson (2022) document how Muslim women are socialized into theological obedience through teachings that frame dissent as spiritual failure. Consequently, many women suppress their concerns out of fear of being labeled impious or ungrateful.
Flynn (2008) and Lynch (2020) further examine how patriarchal religious teachings systematically erode female autonomy. Whether through sermons that sanctify male authority or communal expectations that valorize female suffering, these teachings facilitate SA under the guise of piety. Women are often told that patience and endurance are divinely rewarded, which reinforces harmful power dynamics and renders abuse invisible within the theological landscape.
The African American Muslim Experience
For African American Muslims, the harms of religious authoritarianism are magnified by a historical legacy of racial and socio-economic marginalization. As Miller (2021) and Crawford and Miller (2020) observe, African American Muslims often find themselves navigating spaces that, while spiritually familiar, are culturally alien. This dissonance creates a spiritual liminality in which Black Muslims must negotiate both external racism and internal authoritarianism.
In many African American Muslim communities, especially those influenced by transnational Islamic ideologies, religious leadership tends to be centralized and male-dominated. Theological legitimacy is often measured by proximity to Arab-centric norms, further marginalizing indigenous interpretations and spiritual expressions. The result is a form of epistemic erasure where African American Muslims must suppress their cultural identities to be considered authentically Muslim.
The Psychological Toll: From Faith to Fear
Religious authoritarianism is not merely a matter of spiritual control; it has deeply rooted psychological consequences. Ellis and Tucker (2021) highlight how rigid theological systems exacerbate existential anxiety by dictating not only what one must believe, but also how one must feel. Instead of offering solace, such systems cultivate fear, shame, and confusion.
De Dinechin and Léger (2019) note that these authoritarian models often blur the line between divine love and coercive control, leaving adherents emotionally destabilized. For African American Muslims, this dynamic is compounded by ongoing encounters with racism both inside and outside the Muslim community. The dissonance between faith and lived experience fosters a crisis of meaning, often culminating in Religious Trauma Syndrome (RTS), a condition marked by anxiety, depression, and identity fragmentation (Winell, 2011).
Religious Trauma Syndrome and Intersectional Harm
RTS is particularly acute in racialized communities where religious authoritarianism intersects with systemic oppression. Abdalla (2023) and Abu-Ras et al. (2021) document how African American Muslims who suffer from SA frequently encounter teachings that uphold racial and gender-based hierarchies. These doctrines not only marginalize their voices but also discourage them from seeking help, thereby reinforcing cycles of trauma.
The cumulative effect is a spiritual architecture that prioritizes doctrinal purity over human dignity. Victims are encouraged to view their suffering as spiritually redemptive rather than abusive, making healing all the more difficult. In such spaces, critique is framed as rebellion, and silence is mistaken for faith.
Toward Theological Justice
The antidote to religious authoritarianism is not secularism or rejection of faith but a reorientation toward theological justice. This includes:
- Dismantling hierarchical gatekeeping that limits interpretive diversity.
- Affirming culturally grounded expressions of faith, especially from marginalized communities.
- Training religious leaders in trauma-informed care, particularly as it relates to gender and racial identity.
- Fostering inclusive theological discourse that welcomes doubt, reinterpretation, and lived experience as valid religious knowledge.
Spiritual communities must reclaim the essence of faith as a source of healing, not harm. At the Black Crescent Wellness Foundation, we believe that liberation begins in the heart and hermeneutics—how we understand and articulate our faith. To resist authoritarianism is not to abandon religion but to restore its sacred purpose: the flourishing of the soul.
References
Abdalla, I. (2023). Islamic trauma and intersectional identities: The overlooked dimensions of spiritual abuse. Journal of Race, Religion, and Health, 5(2), 134–150.
Abu-Ras, W., Hosseini, S., & Saleem, M. (2021). African American Muslim women and mental health: Navigating religious trauma. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 15(1), 27–42.
Ahmad, S., & Patterson, R. (2022). Obedience and oppression: Muslim women’s experiences with theological control. Gender and Religion Studies, 8(3), 112–126.
Ahmad, S., Lewis, D., & Yasin, F. (2024). Double jeopardy: The intersection of race and religion in the mental health of African American Muslims. American Journal of Islamic Psychology, 3(1), 15–31.
Crawford, A., & Miller, Z. (2020). The politics of piety and race in Black Muslim America. Sociology of Religion, 81(3), 305–321.
De Dinechin, J., & Léger, M. (2019). Faith or fear? Psychological outcomes of authoritarian religion. Mental Health & Religion Review, 11(2), 98–112.
Ellis, M., & Tucker, J. (2021). Rigid religiosity and existential distress: A clinical overview. Journal of Pastoral Counseling, 47(1), 29–41.
Flynn, K. (2008). Patriarchy in the pulpit: Gender and religious trauma in conservative churches. Feminist Theology Quarterly, 14(2), 67–85.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Kidd, I. J. (2017). Epistemic oppression and religious fundamentalism. In J. Medina & G. Pohlhaus (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (pp. 219–230). Routledge.
Lynch, K. (2020). Spiritual abuse and the suppression of female autonomy. Psychology of Religion and Gender Studies, 12(4), 202–219.
Miller, R. (2021). Black Islam in white spaces: Navigating marginalization in American mosques. Journal of American Religious Life, 9(1), 77–95. Winell, M. (2011). Religious trauma syndrome: How some organized religion leads to mental health problems. Cognitive Psychology Review, 3(2), 121–135.