MESJID AND MEJLIS

LEGAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

THE MEJLIS AND THE ADMINISTRATION AND OWNERSHIP OF MOSQUES IN
ETHIOPIA:

Global Coalition for Justice (GCJ) in Colaboration with

Muslim Ethiopian Lawyers Association (MELA)

March 2024/ Ramadan 1445

 Introduction:
Ethiopian is the proud owner of some of the world’s earliest and most iconic Islamic heritage
cites as well as a considerable quantity of Mesajid and Awqaf established later on throughout the
country. Most of these establishments are acquired through the immense culture of the individual
Ethiopian Muslim to give back to their deen and their community rather than being obtained
through any other organized means. Compared to our deep-rooted history in the nation,
Ethiopian Muslim ironically has not inherited a significant number of functioning mosques and
endowments from the previous centuries. As the marginalized and disenfranchised segment of
the existing nation, whose history and heritage has practically been erased from the countries
historic discourse, we also had no long-standing method of administrating the little religious sites
that survived the century long modern Ethiopian Inquisition on Islam and Muslims.

Even though modern Ethiopian Muslims struggle saw the formation of a representative body in
the form of the Ethiopian Islamic Affairs Supreme Council (Mejlis), we still have neither a
recognizable custom nor a clearly defined set of rules for the administration and ownership of
mosques and endowments. In actual fact, the ever growing Mejlis-Masjid dichotomy has led to
more complications and ambiguity in addressing the issue of Awqaf and Mesajid administration
than the issues it has resolved since the establishment of the Institution.

The underlying causes for the stagnation in defining the relationship of the Mejlis with Mesajid
and Awqaf span from the meddling of state and other interest group actors, to the internal strife
the Mejlis keeps going through. In the meantime, as the number of Mesajid, Merakiz and Awqaf
in the country increases, so do the intricacies involved in their management and ownership
claims. This and the fact that it took the Mejlis too long to consolidate itself, has made it even
harder to keep up with the growing number of conflicts related to the administration of mosques
and endowments. The Attempted involvement of the Mejlis in the matter in the past has mostly
complicated the matter even further due to the absence of predetermined guidelines or even any
governing principle for that matter of Masjid and Awqaf administration.

The only way the Mejlis can be part of the solution for this potentially dangerous issue should be
to formulate a rules based approach to it, which was never even attempted until recently. Even
recent endeavors of the “Reform Mejlis” are however lacking in the assertion of the basic
principles that govern the relationship of the Mejlis with the Mesajid, Merakiz and Awqaf. There
has been no distinguishable and novel attempt made by this or the previous administration of the
Majlis at addressing this issue.

The Reform Mejlis has announced that it has approved a mosque regulation bylaw called
“የመስጂድ መመሪያ” (Mesjid Directive) and have even embarking upon implementing the so
called regulation. Both the promulgating of the regulation and the contents thereof has massive
legal ramifications that have to be taken in to account before taking the steps to draft and
implement such a consequential document. Any regulation, to be an effect tool in resolving the

1
issue, has to be consistent with both constitutionally recognized and protected individual and
group rights laws in Ethiopian and the relevant rules of Islamic Law on Fiqhul Mesajid Wal
Awqaf.

In this article, the underlying Sharia and conventional legal principle of the establishment and
administration of mosques, the relevant national and Sharia law considerations that need to be
taken in to account before drafting and promulgating a regulation on the administration and
ownership of mosques, the compatibility of such a regulations with the relevant Ethiopian and
Islamic jurisprudence and the legal and practical ramifications of how and by whom mosques are
administered will be examined. Whereas the writer attempts to summarize and put forward
possible recommendations at the end of the article, since the article is prepared for the purposes
of a conference presentation and dialogue. The combined suggestions and recommendations
collected from the participants of the conference and any further discourse will be incorporated
in the final draft and hopefully serve as a policy framework for the subsequent comprehensive
legal document in this regard.

2
 1. Establishing and Owning a Masjid
The discussion on the ownership and administration of mosques and Waqf has different facets to
consider including but not limited to the definition of the terms Mosques, Waqf, Ownership and
Administration as it pertains to them, then comes the sharia principles regarding their ownership
and administration, after which the general legal frame work regarding ownership related rights
of citizens of the country the mosque and Waqf are located. Therefore we need at least a brief
discussion of these topics before delving in to our main topic.

1.1 Mosque /Mesjid Defined

The literal meaning of the term Mesjid is a place where one performs the act of prostration
(Sujjud). (Omer, H. F., & Farhadullah. 2019). To distinguish it further from the rest of the earth’s
surface, about which the prophet ‫ ﷺ‬has said “the whole earth has been made a place of
prostration for me” (Bukhari and Muslim), we can define a mosque as a place designated to
regularly perform the Salah in congregation (Omer & Farhadullah, 2019). It is also a commonly
known fact in Islam that mosques serve a far greater role in the lives of the individual Muslim
and the Ummah in general. Mosques, starting with the Prophet’s ‫ ﷺ‬mosque in Medina, have
always served as the hub of educational, social, judicial and political gathering (Collins, Hope,
2011). The attachment and affection Muslims have for the concept of mosques is so deep that it
is considered a second home particularly for the Muslim men and it has also been the one place
where parents would prefer and feel safer for their children to spend their days in.

The Mesjid, as a sanctuary of the believer, requires the facilities not only of prayer but also other
auxiliary elements. This may include additional rooms for education or office uses, open spaces
for the purposes of parking and staging areas for events as well as additional praying area for
larger congregations. It may also require and may have other infrastructures that are essential to
generate income for the Masjid. There may also be an overlap between the Mesjid as a Musella
and the infrastructure related to it directly and indirectly. This makes the topic of establishment,
ownership and management of Mesjid even more contentious and requiring a more nuanced
definition and classification. The definition of a Masjid therefore has to include the whole
infrastructure used for the regular congregational prayers and other acts of worship performed
within that structure including all its intrinsic parts attached or separate to the Musella but
exclusively dedicated to it (Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khudriy, 2001).

1.2 The Sharia Aspects of Establishment and Maintenance of a Masjid

Instituting a Muslim Community anywhere in the world would not be complete without a
mosque. More importantly, establishing and maintaining a mosque is considered among the
common obligations of a Muslim community known as Fardul-kifaya, which is a type of
Communal Responsibility, which is considered fulfilled by everyone if it is performed by any
one member of the community. This has been deducted by many Ulama out of the verse;

3
 ‫ٱﻟﺰﻛ َٰﻮةَ َوﻟَ ْﻢ‬ ‫ﺴـ ِٰﺠ َﺪ ٱ ﱠ ِ َﻣ ْﻦ َءا َﻣﻦَ ِﺑﭑ ﱠ ِ َوٱ ْﻟﯿَ ْﻮ ِم ٱﻷ ِﺧ ِﺮ َوأَﻗَﺎ َم ٱﻟ ﱠ‬
‫ﺼﻠَ ٰﻮةَ َو َءاﺗَﻰ ﱠ‬ َ ‫﴿ ِإﻧﱠ َﻤﺎ ﯾَ ْﻌ ُﻤ ُﺮ َﻣ‬
18: ‫ﻮا ِﻣﻦَ ٱ ْﻟ ُﻤ ْﮭﺘ َ ِﺪﯾﻦَ ﴾ ﺳﻮرة اﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‬ ۟ ُ‫ﺴ ٰ ٓﻰ أ ُ ۟وﻟَ ٰـٓﺌِﻚَ أَن ﯾَﻜُﻮﻧ‬
َ َ‫ﺶ ِإ ﱠﻻ ٱ ﱠ َ ۖ ﻓَﻌ‬
َ ‫ﯾَ ْﺨ‬
“The mosques of Allah should only be founded/ maintained by those
who believe in Allah and the Last Day, establish prayer, pay alms-
tax, and fear none but Allah. It is right to hope that they will be
among the ˹truly˺ guided.” Quran 9:18

The establishment part in particular is also of an immense importance for the individual Muslim
because of the Hadith narrated by Uthman Ibn Affan (May Allah be pleased with him), where
the messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, “he who builds a Masjid for Allah seeking his pleasure, Allah
would reward him with a mansion in Paradise.” (Bukhari &Muslim) That’s why even with the
meager resources Muslims may have, wherever a considerable number of them settles in a place,
you’ll find a Mesjid even if it is a small shack. This is why we can correctly say that mosques are
the result of the individual Muslim community’s efforts rather than establishments of the state or
other administrative organs.

The communal duty stated above regarding mosques is not limited to its establishment. The Ayah
combines the duty to establish with the duty to maintain a masjid in one single beautiful word:
“‫( ﯾَ ْﻌ ُﻤ ُﺮ‬Ya’muru)”. Both the translation of this word and its interpretation by the scholars of Quran
convey more than one meaning. The word has been translated as “build”, “maintain” and “tend
to” by scholars of translation Mufti Taqi Usmani, Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Ghali and Abul Ala
Maududi respectively. The interpretation of this ayah by classical Tafseer sources as well as
contemporary interpreters alike imply both establishing (‫ )ﺗﺌﺴﯿﺲ‬and maintaining (‫ )إﻋﺘﻨﺎء‬of
mosques as being the duty of the believers who fulfill the rest of the requirements in the ayah.
The question now is: does the fact that one establishes and maintains a Masjid means he/she
owns one?

The ultimate ownership of mosques belongs to the one and only Allah ‫ ﷻ‬as inferred by different
scholars from the following Quranic commandment and the Prophet’s ‫ ﷺ‬hadith. Allah ‫ ﷻ‬says in
Suratul-Jinn ayah 18.

﴾‫ﺎﺟﺪَ ِ ﱠ ِ َﻓ َﻼ ﺗ َ ْﺪﻋُﻮا َﻣ َﻊ ﱠ ِ أ َ َﺣﺪًا‬

ِ ‫ﺴ‬َ ‫﴿ َوأ َ ﱠن ْاﻟ َﻤ‬
"And the mosques are for Allah (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allah"

The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬is also reported to have a said that:

"‫"ﻋﻠﯿﻜﻢ ﺑﺈﺗﯿﺎن اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺟﺪ ﻓﺈﻧﮭﺎ ﺑﯿﻮت ﷲ ﻓﻲ اﻷرض‬

“You are advised to visit mosques (often) for these are God's houses on the earth.”

Moreover, unlike the right of an owner to a private property to have exclusive access protected both under
statutory and Islamic law, the owner of a mosque cannot have the same right under the Sharia as per the
Quranic cautioning, which states:

‫ﺳﻌَ ٰﻰ ﻓِﻲ َﺧ َﺮا ِﺑﮭ َۚﺎ﴾إﻟﺦ‬ ْ ‫ﺎﺟ َﺪ ﱠ ِ أَن ﯾُ ْﺬﻛ ََﺮ ﻓِﯿﮭَﺎ ا‬
َ ‫ﺳ ُﻤﮫُ َو‬ ِ ‫ﺴ‬َ ‫﴿ َو َﻣ ْﻦ أ َ ْظﻠَ ُﻢ ﻣِ ﱠﻤﻦ ﱠﻣﻨَ َﻊ َﻣ‬
4
 “And who is more unjust than those who forbid that Allah's Name be glorified and
mentioned much (i.e. prayers and invocations, etc.) in Allah's Mosques and strive for
their ruin?”

Therefore it would be unacceptable according to the sharia to claim the literal concept of
ownership to establishments designated as Mosques or for anyone to claim ultimate lordship
over them. As such, when we speak of ownership as regards to mosques, we are merely referring
to the right to administer the tangible animate and inanimate subjects of the establishment. This
is because, after all, mosques are built on and by resources susceptible to being owned. The
owner of those resources is thus the figurative “owner” of the mosque and its establishments.
Otherwise it would not have been permissible to refer to a mosque in the possessive noun under
Islamic law as the prophet ‫ ﷺ‬does in the hadith:

“‫اﻟﺤﺮام‬
َ ٌ ‫”ﺻﻼة ٌ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺠﺪِي ھﺬا‬
َ‫ﺧﯿﺮ ﻣﻦ أﻟﻒِ ﺻﻼةٍ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺳﻮاه إﻻ اﻟﻤﺴﺠﺪ‬
“A prayer in this mosque of mine is better than a thousand prayers anywhere else, except
for masjid-Al-Haram”

Based on this and other Sunnah, whereby during the Prophet’s ‫ ﷺ‬time mosques were named after
the person or tribe that established them, scholars agree that human beings can have some sort of
ownership right over mosques (Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khudriy, 2001). Accordingly, the ownership, in
so far as the possession and administration of the mosques is concerned, belongs to those who
established it both under the Quranic principle that man is the vicegerent of Allah ‫ ﷻ‬on earth
(Quran 2:30) and man-made law. There is no Sharia or statutory law basis to suggest otherwise
(Dr. Tajudin Y. and Dr. Lukman A., 2013). Within these limits to the understanding of
ownership, each and every Muslim has a particularly important spiritual reason to establish and
maintain a mosque irrespective of its size or related infrastructure. That means every capable
Muslim not only wants to establish or contribute to the establishment of a masjid, but also wants
to make sure that it is maintained by Mutaqun and is used to worship only Allah‫ ﷻ‬based on their
understanding. Therefore it would also be reasonable to expect a person or group of persons who
establish a Masjid to want to run it or at least have a say in its management too.

1.3 The Conventional Law Aspects of Establishment and Maintenance of a Masjid

The discussion on the Sharia law related to mosques is by itself a broad and wholesome subject
for countries where sharia law is the general applicable legal system. The rules of establishment
and maintenance of mosques or any other Awqaf in Islamic countries maybe found as part of the
state legislated law. In such countries the state, as the sole guardian and in most cases benefactor
of mosques, has the sovereign power to govern them. When it comes to secular countries like
ours however, the foundations of the right and responsibility of establishing and running a
mosque are entirely different.

5
It is shown above that establishing and maintaining a mosque is not only a religious right but
also a duty for any Muslim able to do so. Therefore, as part of a religious rite and an act of
obedience to Allah‫ ﷻ‬the establishment and administration of mosques is a part of the protected
right and freedom to practice religion as enshrined both in international human rights declaration
and constitutions of nations including our own. Article 6(1) of the Declaration on the Elimination
of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief specifically
protects the rights of an individual or a group of people to “establish and maintain” places of
worship.

Ethiopia has ratified this accord and hence, as all international agreements so ratified, it is
considered an integral part of the law of the land as per article 9(4) of the FDRE constitution, To
insure every Muslim Ethiopian can exercise the inalienable right to establish and maintain a
Masjid, the state has the responsibility to provide the necessary means of establishing places of
worship and the right to issue specific rules and procedures under which these places of worship
can lawfully be established. It also has the responsibility to protect the right of every individual
and group of Muslims to maintain the places of worship they have established without any
intolerance and discrimination based on belief. Beyond that, the state can never enact laws to
determine the details of how the rights to maintain and administer them are exercised because of
the principles of separation of state and religion.

Following the declaration of the FDRE constitution, Ethiopia has laid down the legal frame work
for the acquisition of the necessary plots of land for the establishment of places of worship. One
of the legal channels of acquiring such land, particularly in urban areas is through allotment by
the city administrations under article 12(1)(c) of the urban land lease holding proclamation no.
721/2011. Places of worship acquired through other means are also afforded legal status and can
obtain title deeds from the municipality through legal procedures by fulfilling the requirements
stated under directives number 1/2010 and 35/2013 titled ‘የአምልኮ ቦታ አፈቃቀድ መመሪያ’ and
‘የኃይማኖት ተቋማት የይዞታ ማረጋገጫ አሰጣጥ መመሪያ’ respectively. This is the extent of the
involvement by the state in the affairs of mosques. There is no and has never been a codified rule
of law in the country that has anything to do with the ownership and administration of religious
sites even for the Ethiopian orthodox church which has had a historically close tie to the state. It
is and has always been up to the Muslim community to decide how to govern these places of
worship, the details of which are the topics of our next segment.

2. The Administration of a Mesjid

As pointed out above, the administration in countries that are considered as ‘Islamic’ is a lot less
complicated than that of secular states. Countries with majority Muslim population and countries
with Sharia based governments have a more hands-on approach to the administration of
Mosques. This is mainly due to the quid pro quo relationship between the state and the mosques,
whereby the state is either the founder or at least the sponsor for all the expenses of the Masjid.
The considerations in the secular and or Muslim minority countries are different and the limited

6
involvement and contribution of the state in the establishment of mosques limits their
involvement in their administration.

2.1 The Administration of Mosques in Different Countries

The issue of mosque and Awqaf administration has been addressed at varying level of efficacy in
different countries depending on both the historic and contemporary influence of Islam in the
demography and political administration of a country. This becomes clearer when we look at
some examples. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Dawah and
Guidance, is in charge of all the affairs of mosques, and Islamic centers. Malaysia’s Federal
Department of Development of Islam (JAKIM) regulates all aspects of mosques. In Türkiye, the
Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) regulates the mosques established across Türkiye. In
the United Arab Emirates, the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments (Awqaf)
and the Islamic Affairs and Charitable Activities Department (IACAD) control the issuing of
licenses to “public and private prayer rooms and prohibiting anyone from building, allocating, or
modifying a space to be used as a prayer room without prior approval” as well as all other
mosque related activities. In Pakistan, a committee led by the District Coordination Officer
(DCO) is responsible for issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the establishment of
mosques. The National Action Plan (NAP) of 2014 and the revised NAP 2021determine the
registration and regulation of religious institutes across the country. The government in these
countries essentially decides not only the establishment and maintenance of mosques but also
what is even publicly said in mosques (US State Department Report on Religious Freedom
2021).

This is a relatively recent status quo and applies to all mosques in these countries regardless of
when or how they have been established. The motive behind the desire of the government of
these countries to administer and maintain their mosques is not always altruistic. The importance
of mosques, particularly in Muslim majority nations, is not just in their influence over the
spiritual aspect of the population. Mosques in these countries are also institutions that shape the
social, economic and even political opinion of the public. Therefore the state has a vested interest
in controlling all aspects of their administration. That is why the government at least at a
ministry level controls the election of Imams, the messages of each and every Friday sermon, the
teacher and teachings of every Sheikh in every mosque in their territory (Dr. Abdul Rauf Iqbal,
2023). Such a complete scrutiny is only possible in an Islamic or Muslim majority country where
the separation of state and religion may not be an issue. But the issue is more complicated in
countries proclaimed to be secular.

Secular countries’ approach to this issue also varies depending on the size and concentration
areas of their Muslim population. In this regard, there is, for instance, a striking resemblance
between the legal framework of mosque administration in Nigeria and India even though the
former is a Muslim majority population and the latter is not. In both countries, the Muslim to
other religious group ratio is different across each region of these countries, thereby resulting in

7
differing rules of administration of Mosques in individual regions. In regions of both countries
with Muslim majority demography, we find a more extensive involvement of the state in the
administration of Mosques than the regions of the countries without Muslim majority (Ismael S.
Ismael and Abdulmumin A., 2020). The same factors are at play here as in the Islamic
government or Muslim majority countries because the governorate of each region in these two
countries has something to do with the establishment or funding of the mosques.

There are a lot more factors to consider when it comes to countries with Muslim minority
population and those following a strictly secular legal system irrespective of their demography
including the dynamics of separation of state and religion, equality of all religions, the protection
of individual and group right as well as national security issues. Due to these legal and
constitutional restrictions, a country claiming to follow a western democratic and secular form of
government cannot legally be seen regulating how and by whom mosques are established and
administered.

In the past few decades however, there has been a growing interest to control mosques on the
side of both Islamic and Muslim majority as well as secular and Muslim minority countries alike,
on the pretext of the fight against terrorism. Governments and state agencies have been exerting
more and more influence on mosques under the guise of preventing extremism and radicalization
(Collins Hope, 2011). Compared to the Muslim and Muslim Majority countries, however, the
focus of the secular ones is more on what is preached in the mosques than how the mosques are
administered. Other than that, most of what we traditionally call western governments
acknowledges that the ownership and administration right of mosques belongs to the ones who
establish them (Lene Kühle, 2020). There are actually more constraints and restrictions on
establishing and running a mosque in Muslim majority and Islamic government states than
secular and western states as the secular ones need to avoid interference in the religious affairs of
their citizens: at least in public.

3. The Ownership and Administration of Mosques in Ethiopia

The legal aspects of administration of mosques in Ethiopia cannot be examined separate from the
administration of places of worship in general. Therefore, we will try to briefly review the
general concept as it applies to all places of worship first.

3.1 The Ethiopian Law on Places of Worship

As stated above, the Ethiopian government, even during the Christian dynasty has never enacted
a state law on the administration of places of worship and religious sites of any religion. All the
applicable laws on places of worship are aimed at upholding the right to establish them and the
procedures of acquiring the necessary infrastructures to do so. In the rural areas it is the legal and
practical custom to establish places of worship inside the farm land of private citizens. There
have been multiple city administration directives both before and after the promulgation of the
urban land lease holding proclamation no. 721/2011 on how urban plots of land are disseminated
8
for places of worship. Even though it has been established by the binding ruling of the Federal
Supreme Court Cassation Bench based on article 1578 of the civil code in the Ethiopian
Orthodox Church Jigjiga St. Michael Church Vs Adanch Mengistu file no. 22469, that places of
worship can lawfully be possessed without title deeds, there are ‘የአምልኮ ቦታ አፈቃቀድ
መመሪያ’ and ‘የኃይማኖት ተቋማት የይዞታ ማረጋገጫ አሰጣጥ መመሪያ’ directives regulating
the process of establishment of urban places of worship. The Ethiopian Orthodox, Catholic and
Gospel Believers Churches have all better track records than the Muslim community in
organizing their efforts to both obtain and administer their own places of worship.

The Catholic Church is known to have a centralized chain of ownership and administration of its
places of worship and related institutions all over the world, which is also true of its Ethiopian
diocese. The Ethiopian Orthodox church is so far the sole owner and administrator of all
movable and immovable property related to the places of worship of orthodox Christians in
Ethiopia (Philipos Aynalem, 2002). Based on the individual nature of the establishment of
Gospel Believers Churches by each pastor and the separate funding sources, it can be easily
deduced that their ownership and administration belongs to the pastors. The Council of Ethiopian
Gospel Believers only gives certificate of registration to these churches as individual and
independent legal persons even after it has been endowed with legal personality by law.

The circumstances under which followers of all three Christian faiths have been able to acquire
their places of worship, the religious connotations and significance of establishing and
maintaining them and the benefits of having an institutional method of doing so shows a stark
contrast to the Muslim community’s method or the lack thereof. At least one has been
historically privileged over all the other religious groups whereas all three have a lot longer and
comparatively stronger organizational advantage over the Muslim populous of the country. The
representative institutions of all three religions have played a major role in the founding process
of their respective places of worship and related assets either from inception or immediately
after. The establishment and maintenance story of Muslim places of worship and institutions in
Ethiopia, on the other hand is an entirely different scenario.

3.2 The Establishment and Maintenance of Ethiopian Mesajid

The administration of mosques has largely been decentralized in the Muslim world with the fall
of the Khilafa in general and the collapse of the remaining sultanates in different regions in
particular. Ethiopia is no different because the last time the state funded and run mosques in what
we now call ‘Ethiopia’ was when the sultanate of Harar existed (Timothy I. and Ahmed Z.,
2019). The surviving Islamic heritage sites in the country do not come with their credentials
intact as to determine who exactly established and actually administered them in the past. Most
of the long surviving mosques are those that found in rural and sometimes urban Ethiopia area
usually associated with renowned Madaris, Khalawa, Harima and Zawiyas that are named after
their founding sheikhs. To this date, the task and honor of their guardianship and position of
teaching are handed down to the descendants of the name-sake Meshaeikh, which gives us a
9
clear picture as to who has been in charge of their administration. Other than that, there are
virtually no preserved historical structures or accounts of mosques in Ethiopia to have a
continued discussion of their establishment and administration. The only available resources in
this subject are literatures of mosques founded in the previous and this century mostly about
mosques found in urban Ethiopia.

3.2.1 Common Trends of Establishment of Mosques in Ethiopia and the Legal

Ramifications on their Ownership and Administration

In most of the Muslim majority rural areas in our country, a mosque is almost always built with
one’s house. Therefore, there isn’t much debate or discussion as to who should be charged with
their maintenance and administration. When it comes to the gymnastics of establishing a new
mosque in Muslim minority rural areas and all major cities in Ethiopia, it is by itself a topic that
requires a separate research. In most circumstances, one wouldn’t find a mosque in Ethiopian
cities that was established without grave harm to the life, liberty and property of the local
Muslim Community. According to an article on Qasam magazine published 10 years ago, studies
show that mosques in Ethiopia are generally established through “individual or group initiative
on lands bought by individual”. The story of almost all the known mosques in Ethiopia in
general and Addis Ababa in particular confirms this assertion that mosques are established by or
on the private property of Muslim individuals who have donated their property in perpetual
endowment known as Waqf (Abdulfetah Abdellah, 2002)

Ethiopian Muslims have been resilient in their desire and demand to establish mosques with or
without the assistance of either the government or their own representative organ. The
establishment of the first ever mosque in Addis Ababa for example and the subsequently erected
pride and joy of Addis Ababa Muslims: Anwar and Noor (Benin) mosques was achieved before
there was even the talk of institutional organization of Ethiopian Muslims (የአንዋር መስጂድ
ኮሚቴ፣ 1967). In reality Ethiopian mosques have been instrumental for the establishment of an
organized institution for Ethiopian Muslims and not the other way around. The initiatives that led
to the establishment of the one and only common representative of Ethiopian Muslims, the
Mejlis, were conceived in the compounds of the grand Anwar and Benin mosques. That was the
first and defining relationship of our Mesajid with our Mejlis. The evolving relationship of Mejlis
and Mesjid will be briefly discussed in the next section.

Coping with the changing political and ideological tides, Ethiopian Muslims have been trying to
find innovative ways to meet their demand for mosques and other religious sites and institutions
throughout the modern state building history of the country. In this process, three distinct trends
can be observed emerging and evolving over the past one hundred years. The first and most
successful trend, in terms of sheer numbers of successfully established mosques, is turning
privately owned properties in to mosques through Waqf. This trend, although diminishing in
contributions in recent years, has given us most of either the whole mosque or the plot of land on
which the structure is built. The second trend, which is also the most common to this day is also
10
the group initiatives by the residents of usually newly established neighborhoods, whereby they
use their consorted effort to locate and reserve unused plots of land in their vicinity and build
mosques usually starting with makeshift prayer spots. Sometimes mosques established through
this trend also adopt the features of Waqf as the structure is usually built by an individual or a
group of Ahlul-Kheyr even if the land was acquired through the efforts of the general public
(Abdulfetah Abdellah, 2002). As will be pointed out next, there is also an emerging and currently
proving more effective trend, whereby mosques are established by the structured demand made
to the government through the Mejlis and very few other organizations.

Despite the remarkable size and location of the mosques that were recently acquired through this
later trend, the legalization process and issuance of land deeds for the previously established
mosques has required the relentless effort and collaboration of individuals and Mesjid
committees with the help of the Mejlis. However, neither the statutory laws of the country nor
the established custom or a binding, recognizable and uniform precedence from the Sharia Court,
has settled the issue of ownership and administration of mosques once and for all. Article 2(18)
and 2(18) of the Addis Ababa City Administration Directives number 01/2004 and 34/2004,
respectively, provide for the permissibility of acquiring plots of land and title deeds to places of
worship both for a physical as well as legal religious person. That is why the title deeds of the
majority of mosques and Islamic establishments still name as the holder either the generic names
of the mosques, the name of the plot supplier, the Ahlul-Kheyr builder or, as in recent times, the
Mejlis. Even though article 1195 of the Ethiopian civil code states that the title holder of an
immovable property is considerd as the lawful owner and possessor of it, this only answers half
the question when it comes to mosques.

This is because the statutory right to its ownership and management has to also align with the
religious conception of what a mosque is and who has the most right to it. As demonstrated
above, both the specific Muslim founder of a mosque and the general Muslim public have a sort
of ownership right over mosques. The former by virtue of his effort and physical ownership
recognized under statutory and Islamic law and the later by the virtue of the communal nature of
mosques both in essence and purpose under Islamic law. How a Muslim community reconciles
the two depends on how that particular community handles the public domain and communal
affairs of that community. Muslim Ethiopians haven’t had much luck or forte in that department
as clearly demonstrated by the close to a century long effort to become an organized community,
which is still a work in progress in the evolved persona of the Mejlis.

3.2.2 The Legal and practical Boundaries of The Mejlis- Mesjid Dichotomy

We have established above that mosques played the most important role in the formation and
development of the Mejlis as an organizing institute for Ethiopian Muslims. It should have been
the other way around but mosques were the home front in the fight for a Mejlis that represents
and protects the religious rights and freedoms of all Ethiopian Muslims and their mosques and
other institutes. The Mejlis, since its inception, has had to endure impediments both within it and

11
from external interferences to ensure its mere survival let alone help in organizing the affairs of
Ethiopian Muslims. So, the Mejlis has never had neither the organizational capacity nor the
stability for a long enough period of time to take on the issue of Mosque ownership and
management issues (የሙስሊሞች ጉዳይ ፊቸር ጸሐፊ ቡድን, 2012). Throughout the Mejlis’ life
time, there has been neither a clearly defined and publicly recognized connection nor a legally
demarcated Mejlis-Mesjid relationship. As a matter of fact, until the promulgation of
Proclamation number 1207/2012, which granted it legal personality, the Mejlis itself was just
another civic society organizations established by and between its members with an internal
articles of association applicable only on its signatories under the law (Jemal Hassen, 2012). As
a civil service organization registered entity with articles of association signed by its members,
the Mejlis had no power of issuing rules and regulations for the ownership and management of
Mosques. And since mosques or their administrators have not all been registered the Mejlis
could not possibly have a legal or contractual right to control and manage mosques in Ethiopia in
general. This doesn’t mean, however, that it never tried to exert its power over them in practice.

Prior to the first known articles of association of the Mejlis, which was signed by its general
assembly of 12 people in 1997 EC (2005 GC), there have been different practical attempt made
to bring mosques under the purview of the Mejlis. It was mostly done through the mutual
understanding and interest of the administrators of the mosques, commonly called ‘mosque
committees’ (የመስጂድ ኮሚቴ), and the Mejlis for specific purposes. The relationship usually
started on the request of these committees for letters of recognition to the committee by the
Mejlis, which the committees require to expedite the establishment of the mosque and acquire
title deeds for it. Some committees used to also directly request the Mejlis to assign an Imam and
Muazin for their mosques. The Mejlis has also made a great effort, particularly in the begining of
1980s EC, to establish new mosques and Madrasas, which it directly funded and controlled. But
when the Mejlis tried to expand that direct influence on the other previously established
mosques, it was met with opposition from different individual and community owned and
administered mosques, which some believed resulted in the subsequent conflict and violence
which led to the unfortunate 1987 Anwar Mesjid incident (Seid M. Awel, 2021). In a more
calculated move on its part, the Mejlis tried to bridge the gap between it the mosques by
establishing the department of mosques and endowments /የመስጂድና የአውቃፍ ዘርፍ/.
However, if we look at the provisions of articles 18.3 of the articles of association, which
established the department in 2021, it recognizes the authority of the mosque committees as the
administrators of mosques rather than asserting Mejlis’ power over mosques in general.

Under its previous bylaws, the Mejlis considered itself as a coordinator of the efforts to obtain
more mosques and legalize the existing ones, as a facilitator for developing consistency and
standardization of the establishment and management of mosques and as an arbitrator of disputes
between the mosque committees, the Imam and the congregation as stated under articles 18.3.1
through 18.3.7. The Mejlis back then knew both the complicated nature of the issue and its own
short comings and as such even undertook to collect the necessary data on the total number of

12
mosques and Muslim cemeteries in Ethiopia, the status and challenges they face and monitor
proper administration of Waqfs under articles 18.3.8-12 and article 18.4. Therefore, at least in
theory, the old bylaws of the Mejlis never claimed any authority for the Mejlis over mosques, but
in practice, there were many instances of an attempt for full of takeover of mosques.

Since there was neither statutory nor Sharia law basis for the Mejlis to forcefully take over the
ownership and administration of the hundreds if not thousands of mosques established by the
blood and sweat of the Muslim community in their individual effort, a more sinister and extra
judicial means was used. To their own demise, each and every group of people who happen to
take control of the Mejlis have tried to either take over or influence the management of mosques
through unlawful means with either the help or the complicity of the government. It is not a
coincidence that there is a direct correlation between mosque instability and regime change in the
Mejlis. In additions to the multitude of challenges both our Mesajid and our Mejlis face, the
absence of a research based, realistic, constitutional and statutory and sharia law enforceable
governance of the establishment and management of mosques has for long held back flourishing
of the much needed mosques and the institutional integrity and viability of the much need Mejlis.
The reason for the catastrophic failure of the previous Mejlis officials’ attempt to control the
infrastructure or doctrine of mosques, even with the help of the government, is the mere fact that
it is practically impossible to do so without trampling on two major constitutional rights: the
right to private property and the right to freedom of religion.

It is especially untenable to forcefully bring the establishment and administration of mosques

under the control of a single entity after the fact because of a factual and a legal reason. The
factual reason is that the mosques have already been established beforehand and they already
have owners and administrators with statutory and sharia law protected rights to property and
religion. The legal reason is that both rights are protected for both the individual and as a group
under articles 40 and 27 of the constitution. Therefore, the only legal avenue towards a common
governance of religious institutions is by inviting and convincing the individual owners of those
rights that it would be in their best interest to voluntarily bring their resources together to
exercise those rights as a group. Without such mutual consensus between the mosques and the
Mejlis even the government doesn’t have the legal authority to force individual believers to
surrender to the complete control of their places of worship to any entity, whether religious or
governmental under the law.

Had the government has such prerogative; it would have at least referred the mosque related
disputes to the Sharia Courts of the country it legally established. The Federal Sharia courts,
reestablished under proclamation no. 188/1999 have not been explicitly authorized to adjudicate
matters related to the ownership and administrations of mosques. The courts may claim
jurisdiction over mosques implicitly if we consider all mosque as Waqf because the federal
Sharia courts has been given material jurisdiction over matters related to Waqf under article
4(1)(b)of the proclamation. However, since the jurisdiction of the Sharia courts is solely based
on the consent of both parties to a suit under sub article (2) of this same article, we are back to
13
square one. This provision makes a general exclusion without making a distinction between any
of the matters the courts have jurisdiction over. The courts’ power in this regard is also further
undermined by the fact that all mosques are not considered Waqf and by the fact that the
underlying principles for these institutions have different jurisprudence under substantive Sharia
law.

This is because of the intricate nature of mosque establishment and the concept of Waqf. First of
all even if the Musella and everything exclusively designated to its use is considered a Mesjid
and as such a Waqf, it may not be physically separate from other residential or financial units of
the owner of the mosque, which are not designated for the Mesjid. Secondly, only the use or
function of the Mosque is communal and not the ownership. Third and most importantly, Waqf
by itself is a complex and profound legal concept that has applications far beyond mosques only.
(Dr. Ibrahim AL-Khudriy 2001). The Sharia ruling regarding Waqf vary depending on the
beneficiary, administrator or extent of the designation, which can be general (‫ )اﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ‬or
specific (‫)اﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﺧﺎص‬, it can be made to a charity (‫ )اﻟﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺨﯿﺮي‬or to family or successors (‫اﻟﺬري‬/
‫)اﻟﻮﻗﻒ اﻷھﻠﻲ‬or a combination of both (‫)اﻟﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮك‬. Some, if not most, of the rulings on Waqf
properties may not be applicable to a Mesjid per say. Therefore, not all mosque-related issues
can be resolved through the Sharia Courts, whose jurisdiction is limited to Waqf under the
proclamation. The previous decisions of the courts are also neither consistent nor well-reasoned
enough to draw precedents from. Up on reviewing the files on mosque related disputes, the
judgments are mostly a brief order accepting or rejecting the claims of the plaintiffs by usually
citing either ‫ ﻣﻨﮭﺞ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﯿﻦ‬or ‫ ﺷﺮح اﻟﻤﮭﺬب‬: ‫ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع‬treatises, which are both general books of Fiqh
/Islamic jurisprudence/. Based on these assessments we can conclude that there are no
authoritative written or precedence laws on the ownership and management/ administration of
Mosques in Ethiopia.

3.2.3 Post Proclamation legal Status of the Mejlis- Mesjid Relationship.

With the sweeping reform actions taken by the government in all major political, legal and
religious matters of the country, the Mejlis has achieved major bench marks in these past 6 years
than the rest of its entire history. The institution has been given unprecedented opportunity in
terms of greater recognition and alleviation of its concerns from the government as well as a
greater independence and the platforms aimed at making the institution more inclusive. Whether
it has used these opportunities or fumbled on them is yet to be seen. Since the promulgation of
the long awaited and hard fought for Mejlis Legal Personality Proclamation number 1207/2012
(MLPP), there are numerous steps taken by the Mejlis to bring about institutional culture
throughout the organization and beyond. Article 6(2) of this proclamation empowers the Mejlis
to issue internal regulations. As per this provision, the power of the Mejlis to enact regulations or
any other binding dictum is limited to the regulation to determine its internal structure and
method of operation. This can be clearly understood from the cumulative reading of articles 6(1)
and 6(3) of the proclamation. There is nothing else in this proclamation to suggest that the Mejlis
has any legal authority over mosques or any other Islamic institutions that were not established
14
or directly administered by the Mejlis before the proclamation. The proclamation, by itself still
does not resolve the questions of mosque administration in Ethiopia, which still leaves the task
and the right to do so for the Muslim community itself.

The most important question at this juncture is; what are the legal and practical capabilities of the
Mejlis to determine the management issues of mosques in general? The two other draft
documents in line for approval, which also served as the precursor to the Mejlis proclamation,
are the Ethiopian Ulama Unity and Cooperation Pact (EUUCP) and the Mejlis Structure
Regulation (MSR). In the wake of the euphoria for the proclamation, the Mejlis was not able to
build up on that achievement and approve the much anticipated EUUCP and MSR drafts as a
collective organization. As it stands today, neither of the two drafts has been approved by a
standing general assembly formulated on the basis of either the previous or the drafted by laws of
the Supreme Council. This would put even the standing of the Mejlis as a legal person in
jeopardy had it not been for the Mejlis Proclamation and the precariously named current
“interim/reform” administration. Irrespective of the temporary or permanent nature of the current
administration of the Mejlis, it has been claimed by it that it has approved the Mejlis Structure
Regulation and that it is abiding by the principles of the EUUCP. Therefore, the remaining part
the discussion will be based on that assumption and the applicability of these two documents.

There are still a few wrinkles to that assumption because as stated above, even though the current
Mejlis administrations claim to do so, they haven’t publicized the final versions of the draft
EUUCP and MSR they have approved. Therefore, it has to be made clear that, for the purposes
of this discussion, the versions of the EUUCP and the MSR mentioned herein under are the
document read in its entirety at the Sheraton Addis summit held on the 1st of May 2019 and the
draft Submitted to the Speakers of the FDRE House of Representatives and House of Federation
by the current administration of the Mejlis respectively.

The issue of Mejlis-Mesjid relations was part of the drafting and redrafting process of the MSR
and the subject of great debates. The first draft MSR considered mosques as part and parcel of
the Mejlis and extended the hierarchy of the Mejlis structure all the way to what it called Mosque
Mejlis “የመስጂድ መጅሊስ”. This approach was however, abandoned in the redrafting process for
all sorts of legal and practical reasons. This final regulation is named the Ethiopian Islamic
Affairs Supreme Council Articles of Association Regulation no. 2/2014, which, incidentally, was
called Regulation no. 2/2014 because the EUUCP is considered as the founding and principal
document of the Mejlis and as such given the name regulation no. 1/2014.

The current serving MSR (regulation No. 2/2014) ends the organizational structure of the Mejlis
at the Werda level and has only three major provisions regarding mosques. These provisions are
found under article 59 of the regulation. The regulation, just like the previously discussed legal
statutes also remains rather reserved from the topic and delegates the fate of mosques to the two
highest authorities of the Mejlis. It is stated under article 59 sub article (1) of the regulations that:

15
 “The Federal Mosque Management Commission will prepare a draft
on the detailed conditions and regulations of mosque use and
management based on the Sharia to be reviewed by the Federal
Council of Ulama and submitted to the Federal Majlis General
Assembly for approval”

The loaded expressions and required procedures stated in this single sub article, shows the
realization of the drafters of how contentious the issue is. It first calls for a preparation of a new
draft by the Mosque Management Commission, which the regulation establishes under article
16(13) as part of its instituting bodies. It requires the preparation of the draft to be based on the
sharia. It then requires for the draft to be reviewed by the Ulama Council before it is approved by
the general council. This is, by far, one of the most rigorous drafting processes required to be
taken by the Mejlis. It is also befitting for the task of bringing mosques in to the domain of one
single entity like the Mejlis legally and without violating the constitutional, statutory and Sharia
law protected rights of the current administrators of most of the Mesajid. It doesn’t stop at
prescribing the requirements of issuing mosque directive. This provision also states under sub
article (2) that until such a directive can be issued in the manner stated under sub article (1), the
Imams, Muazins and administrators of all mosques will remain in their positions. It goes even
further and requires the establishment of a special arbitrator committee which will investigate
disputes over replaced Imams, Muazins and administrators of mosques before the approval of the
by law and present its recommendations to the general assembly of the Mejlis, which will make
the final decision under sub articles (3) and (4) respectively. The only transitory obligation stated
under sub article (5) of article 57 is on the current committee and others in charge of mosque to
cooperate with and respect the orders of the Mejlis during Mejlis officials’ election processes.

As reserved and cautions as it is, the regulation lays the legal foundation to finding a sharia based
and statutory law acceptable common solution to the problem. It is worth noting here that there
have been claims at issuing mosque directives in recent years by both the current and the
previous “reform/interim Mejlis administrations” both at the Federal and City administration
level. Irrespective of their self-presumed status, all the federal and state as well as city
administration Mejlis can only be considered ‘interim/reform’ regimes. This is because the
current regimes lack the necessary administrative bodies required under the MSR regulation no.
2/2014 such as a 165 members general assembly consisting of the representatives enumerated
under article 17 and a constituency elected through the general election process under article 59
to name a few. Therefore the fact that the Mejlis at this stage claims to have issued a mosque
directive (የመስጅድ መመሪያ) poses another conundrum, which intern leads to delegitimizing
not only the directive but also the process itself.

4. The Case for the Consolidated Scheme of Mosque governance.

The complicated ownership and human rights issues surrounding the Mesjid make it hard to
come up with a centralized scheme of administration, which begs the question: why even bother

16
trying to do so? In reconciling the individual nature of the right to establish and manage mosques
with the need for a comprehensive management scheme of mosques have three major
challenging factors.

4.1 The Mesjid and the Mejlis as the Two Facets of the Right to Freedom of Religion.

The first challenge to consider is that: as a religious act of worship with one of the greatest
rewards of “a house in paradise”, each Muslim would strive to establish a Mesjid. Protecting
his/her right to also determine the way it is going to be run gives the capable Ahlel-Kheyr
(investor) more incentive to establish or assist in the establishment of a Mesjid. Even if the
intention of the investor/s who builds a mosque is gaining the pleasure of and a reward from
Allah‫ﷻ‬, he/she would want to retain some sort of authority on administering the mosque. This
stems not only from the desire to exercise their rights to freedom of religion and to property but
also from the need to insure that it will be used for the intended purpose of worshipping Allah ‫ﷻ‬
alone. That is true irrespective of the fact that they will receive their reward just for establishing
the mosque. Therefore, giving mosque establishing individual or group Ahlul-Kheyr assurances
that they will have a say if and when the mosque they help build is not being used for the
purpose and in the manner intended by the Sharia provides an added incentive to motivate them
to build and establish more mosques.

If, on the other hand, they are being told that they will not have a say on the management of their
establishment once they have built it, they will inevitably be discouraged from investing both
their time and money on building and establishing new mosques, which are still scares. This has
been proved to be true by the withholding of hundreds of millions of funds from local and
international donors for the development of new and existing mosques due to the interference of
the previous Mejlis administration in the affairs of mosques. The same concerns and attitude of
distancing local and international Ahlul-Kheyr has been echoing in the past couple of years as
well, which can been seen from the stagnation of commencement and inauguration of new
mosque constructions as compared to the acquisition of new mosque sites.

4.2 The pecuniary Aspects of Mosque Management.

The financial windfall related to mosque management, which the administrators are lawfully
entitled to under the Sharia, should be the second consideration. The administrators of mosques,
by virtue of their positions as the Waqif, or Nadhir (overseer) or an employee thereof, have the
rights to reside in, take salary form the income and even give their position as inheritance to their
progeny. These are accepted rules of Fiqhul-Mesjid and Fiqhul-Awqaf, which have been
consistently recognized by classical and contemporary scholars. Dr. Ihrahim Ibn Salih Alkhudriy
in his book ‫ أﺣﻜﺎم اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺟﺪ‬and Al-Sheikh Mustafa Ahmed Al-Zaraqa in his book ‫ أﺣﻜﺎم اﻷوﻗﺎف‬as well
as the authoritative books of Fiqh used by the Federal Sharia Courts: ‫ ﻣﻨﮭﺞ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﯿﻦ‬and ‫ﺷﺮح اﻟﻤﮭﺬب‬:
‫ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮع‬are all in agreement on this regard. Depriving the present administrators of mosques of
this right as a whole without their consent and consultation is inevitably bound to be met with
great resistance and could be a cause of unrest in mosques.
17
It was this aspect of mosques which used to attract undue attention for the previously corrupt
administrators of the Mejlis, rather than the spiritual or doctrinal integrity of the congregations.
As much as the absence of check and balances and audit supervision of mosque funds leads to
corrupt practices within mosques administrators, it is also bound to implicate the Mejlis the same
way if it were to take hold of the administration of this funds in a whim. This is not only because
of the possible objection of the current and existing mosque administrators or Mesjid
committees, but also because such determinations have a sharia based methods of both
appointment and replacement depending on the type of mosque establishment. If we take, for
example, a mosque that has clearly been donated in its entirety as a Waqf, in the legal sense of
the term, the Waqif, has the right to determine who should be the Nadhir in perpetuity (Al-
Sheikh Mustafa Al-Zaraqa, 1997). That means, the Waqif can not only designate himself or
another person to manage every aspect of the mosque, but also determine the succession of the
replacement in the event of death or incapacitation.

4.3 The Unifying and Divisive Power of Mosques.

The third and most controversial challenge to the consolidation effort of mosque establishment
and management is the intra religious tolerance for the perceived difference of opinions on
matters of Islamic creed or tradition (‫ ﻋﻘﯿﺪة‬or ‫)ﺗﻘﻠﯿﺪ‬. The desire and attempt of each and every
mindful Ahlul-Kheyr, who establishes a mosque is to have it reflect his/her creed or tradition of
what they believe is a mosque established on piety (‫ )ﻣﺴﺠﺪ أﺳﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻘﻮى‬should look like. Even
though it is the position of the Mejlis that most of the differences within the Muslim community,
particularly in Ethiopia, are in tradition (‫ )ﺗﻘﻠﯿﺪ‬rather than creed (‫)ﻋﻘﯿﺪة‬, any unsolicited attempt at
monopolizing mosque administration by any entity could be considerd as a threat to the (‫ )ﻋﻘﯿﺪة‬of
the existing founders and administrators of mosques. Even if the intentions of that entity are
altruistic, it could still be falsely labeled as an indoctrination attempt by those who refuse to
relinquish their grip on their Mesajid for either genuine or selfish or, even worse, sinister
reasons.

As discussed above, an undertaking to bring the administration of mosques in to a consolidated

and centralized regime by an organization like the Mejlis, whose status and acceptance by the
general Muslim public has for long been and still is precarious, needs to be made with great care
and responsibility. A premature and unfounded claim by the Mejlis over mosques in general
could lead to turmoil over the fragile state of the unity of Ethiopian Muslims. It will also
permanently damage the positions of the Mejlis to ever be a mediator or an interlocutor in the
affairs of mosque administration in the eyes of the Muslim community, the state and even
international stakeholders. There are already various incidents and interactions which are
indicative of this threat starting to materialize. The resistance of some mosque committees and
congregations against the steps taken by the Mejlis to replace existing mosque committees or
Nadhirs both in violent protest and by taking legal actions in both Sharia and conventional courts
are not a step in the right direction. The Mejlis has had to institute some of these court cases due
to lack of cooperation from the state security apparatus to enforce its decisions, by siting the
18
excuses of neutrality. Setting aside the legality of the state’s position in this regard, considering
the legal standing of the Mejlis as the representatives of the affairs of Ethiopian Muslims, These
interactions and instances prove this paper’s claim that the Mejlis has not yet laid the legal as
well as sharia grounds to have a say in the management of Mosques in in Ethiopian in general.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The prevailing unprincipled relationship of the Mejlis with the Mesajid is leading to more
complex problems including but not limited to: contentious and at times violent interactions
between the founders, administrators and investors as well as congregations of mosques,
skepticism and withholding of funds by investors from establishing or donating to the
establishment and development of mosque projects for fear of unwarranted takeovers,
inconsistent and discriminatory actions by different regimes of the same Mejlis on selected few
mosques, uncertainties over the limits or the extent of any Mejlis authority over the great
majority of mosques in the country and reluctance of the state security apparatus to either
enforce the decisions of the Mejlis or even cooperate until an actual crime occurs within
mosques.

At this point, all stakeholders including mosque committees, the general public, the state security
and administrative bodies and even the federal Sharia courts are unsure of the exact nature of the
relationship of the Mejlis to the Mesjid. It may not have happened yet, but if anyone challenges
the authority of the Mejlis over any Mesjid in the country and even denies any such authority in a
public forum, they possibly could successfully refute it on the above discussed constitutional and
Sharia law grounds. Once that happens in public, it could permanently damage any future
endeavor to bring about a consolidated mosque administrations legal framework.

In such a state of culminations, it would be counterproductive for the Mejlis to enact an overhaul
Mesjid directive let alone try to enforce it through state law enforcement agencies, who are either
unwilling or on the fence to get involved. It would be even more diminishing to its executive
power to have to resort to the sharia courts to enforce those directives, because any measure the
Mejlis takes based on the provisions of a directive enacted through the proper legal and sharia
channels need to be universally enforced unless challenged by an aggrieved party in a the sharia
court. In other words the committees or Nadhirs of the Mosques should be the once taking the
matter to the Sharia court if and when they disagree with the decisions of the Mejlis based on a
lawfully enacted directive and not the other way around. The practice now is that the Mejlis,
which claims to have enacted a Mosque directive applicable to all mosques in the country, is
brining civil actions against the committee and Nadhirs of different mosques for not complying
with its undisclosed Mesjid directive. This is a huge gamble as any ruling by the court, either in
favor or against the Mejlis, would set a precedence that would make the so called directive or
even future attempts at promulgating one obsolete. What the reform administrations of the Mejlis
need to understand is that the issue is not their willingness or unwillingness to take actions they

19
deem necessary, but rather the unprincipled Mesjid Mejlis relationship which has not defined its
constitutional, statutory and sharia law basis.

The Mejlis can first of all take its legitimacy to be the sole and responsible organ to lead the
mosque establishment and management efforts of Ethiopian Muslims from the preamble and
article 6(2) of proclamation no. 1207/2012, which provide the Mejlis with the necessary tool to
have a constructive role in the administration of mosques in Ethiopia. The Mejlis as stated in the
first paragraph of the preamble of the proclamation is the collective organization of Ethiopian
Muslims established in the exercise of their right to religious assembly protected under article 27
(2) of the FDRE constitution. It is also states in the second paragraph of the preamble that the
Mejlis represents Ethiopian Muslims before the government and internationally. As the
representative organization of Ethiopian Muslims with the power to promulgate its own
regulation, it can bring together the Muslim community and determine its role in their cherished
local institute, which is their Mosque. The Mejlis can exercise this authority only after it
officially approves its constituting regulation and reestablished itself based on the bylaw (Hige-
Mejlis) as prescribed in the proclamation. As stated earlier however, even the existence of a
legally approved Mejlis bylaw does not automatically give the Mejlis the power to reign over
mosques. The provisions of the existing Mejlis bylaw give the federal Mejlis the power to issue
directives regarding the details of mosque management as shown above. In light of this and the
previously discussed exigencies of respect for the religious and statutory rights of Ethiopian
Muslims, any mosque management legal framework initiative needs to be based on the principle
of cooperation rather than control, regulating rather than managing, assisting rather than
administering, inspecting rather than supervising and macro rather than micro managing.
Otherwise, the Mejlis could never reconcile the individual right of Ethiopian Muslims to their
mosques with their group right to it. The Mejlis, to be able to play a constructive role in the
consolidation of mosque establishment and managemts efforts, first needs to assert its position in
the community as the formidable, uniting and protecting organization its founders hoped it to be.
Only then can the Mejlis have a say in the Management of all Mosques in a calculated and
legally acceptable manner.

The Mejlis, therefore, has to also make sure that its involvement in the administration of
mosques does not strip anyone of their livelihood without good cause. In other words, the Mejlis
should not be directly involved in the generation and allocation of funds for specific mosques
which are not established by it or has not acquired the ownership and administration of. Nor
should it have the ultimate authority on dictating who should handle the finances of mosques as a
general rule. Therefore the Mejlis cannot arbitrarily overrule this sharia law and presume to have
the right to the finances of a mosque or the appointment of those who do. This does not however,
means that it should stand idly by while mosque funds are clearly embezzled and funds are
misappropriated. The Mejlis can and should prescribe minimum standards of financial
procedures by requiring mosques to hold a discernible accounting and audit system and
overseeing their adherence to it. It can and should also take probative as well as punitive

20
measures on mosque administrators who are found to be fraudulent. If the measure constitutes
the removal of the administrator/s of the mosque, the replacement should not violate the Sharia
law prescribed procedure and hierarchy depending on the type of mosque establishment and
associated Waqf wills. All of these standards and intricacies are expected to be considered by the
Federal Mosque Management Commission while drafting the Mosque Directive. That is why the
commission is expected to confer with the Ulama Council before finalizing the drafting process.

Even though the founders of each mosque have the right to practice and teach their Islam as they
understand it, the Mejlis should also have the power and the responsibility to be aware of what is
practiced and preached in mosques in the name of Islam. Even the right to the freedom of
religion has in this regard a threshold beyond which it cannot be exercised. The state, under
article 27(5) of the constitution, can limit the exercise of the right to freedom of religion in the
event when it poses a threat to public safety, peace, education, health, public morality and the
right and freedom of others. Incidentally, these are always the excuses used by authoritarian
states to interfere in the religious affairs of citizens. The Muslim community has had to
disproportionately suffer the brunt of this interference in the name of public safety mainly
because it never had a trusted intermediary between its mosques and the state. This would have
been averted had the Mejlis fulfilled its long aspired responsibility of uniting Ethiopian Muslims
and representing their interests before the state and beyond. To be a trustworthy and objective
stakeholder in the administration of mosques in any way, the Mejlis needs to be as inclusive and
nonsectarian as possible. This may be, by far, the most conducive and promising juncture in the
history of the institution to make that a reality. If founded on the principles laid down in the
EUUCP (Regulation No. 1/2014) and the MSR (regulation No. 2/2014), the Mejlis could come
closer than it has ever been to be able to promulgate an acceptable Mejlis directive on the
administration of Mosques in Ethiopia.

It is, therefore, high time for the Mejlis to get its house in order and reestablish itself on the two
basic documents of foundation, i.e. EUUCP (Regulation No. 1/2014) and the MSR (regulation
No. 2/2014). Without taking the necessary steps to introduce these two documents as its
institutional bylaws, the Mejlis cannot legally have a say in the establishment and administration
of mosques in Ethiopia, most of which predate its existence. Once these two institutional bylaws
are officially adopted by it, the principles of Mejlis Mesjid relation will be clearly defined as the
policy documents for the promulgations of a comprehensive mosque directive.

References

1. Abdulfetah Abdellah, የአዲስ አበባ መስጂዶች ታሪክ, Aman Promotion, 2002.

2. Addis Ababa City Administration Directives number 01/2004 and 34/2004

3. Al-Sheikh Mustafa Ahmed Al-Zaraqa, ‫أﺣﻜﺎم اﻷوﻗﺎف‬, Dar Amar, Oman 1997).

21
4. Collins, Hope, The Mosque as a Political, Economic, and Social Institution 622 – Present,
Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects, 2011.

5. Dr. Abdul Rauf Iqbal, Regulation of Mosques in Pakistan – A Choice or a Compulsion?

November 28, 2023.

6. Dr. Ibrahim bin Salih Al-Khudriy, 1‫ ج‬،‫أﺣﻜﺎم اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺟﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺮﯾﻌﺔ اﻹﺳﻼﻣﯿﺔ‬, Darul-Fadilah
Publishing, 2001.

7. Dr. Tajudin Yusuf and Dr. Lukman Abduraheem, The Masjid (Mosque) Basics &
Management, District Global Concept, 2013.

8. Ismael Saka Ismael and Abdulmumini A. Oba, “Administration of Mosques and

Appointment of Imams in Nigeria: Between Islamic Law, Customs, and State
Law.” Islamabad Law Review 4, no. 1, spring, 2020.

9. Jemal Hassen, የኢትዮጵያ መጅሊስ፡ አጣዳፊ ችግሮቹና አማራጭ መፍትሔዎች, Badr

Ethiopia 2012

10. Lene Kühle, The Mosque is for All: Waqf as an Emerging Structure of Islamic
Institutionalization in Denmark, Nordic Journal of Law and Social Research (NNJLSR)
No. 10, pp. 21-40, 2020.

11. Omer, H. F., & FarhadullahInstitution of Masjid and its Role in Social Change:
Challenges and Prospects Jurnal Penyelidikan Islam dan Kontemporari, 2019.

12. Philipos Aynalem, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን የማይንቀሳቀስ ንብረት

ይዞታና የባለቤትነት መብት የህግ ጥበቃ, የኢትዮጵያ ቤተክርስቲያን ጥናት መጽሔት ቁ.1,
ገጽ 41-51, ነሐሴ 2002

13. Seid M. Awel, አትዮጵያውያን ሙስሊሞችና የመጅሊስ ፈተና, Addis Ababa 2021.

14. Timothy Insoll and Ahmed Zekaria, The Mosques of Harar: An Archaeological and
Historical Study, Journal of Islamic Archaeology, University of Exeter 2019.

15. US State Department Report on Religious Freedom 2021.

16. የሙስሊሞች ጉዳይ ፊቸር ጸሐፊ ቡድን, ኢትዮጵያ ሙሰሊም የት ነው?, 2012.

17. የአንዋር መስጂድ ኮሚቴ፣ ታላቁ አንዋር መስጂድ በአዲስ አበባ፣ አርቲስቲክ ማተሚያ
ቤት አ.አ 1967.

22