How Did the Problem Start? And What Agreement Was Reached in Court?
In the heart of Kobe, the mosque was meant to be a symbol of unity for the Muslim community. But over time, it became a center of conflict and exclusion.
Key Figures in the Conflict
The conflict centered around three individuals: Mr. Zia, Mr. Yousuf Badaliya, and Mr. Subhi. These men took over the management of Kobe Mosque and:
- Excluded others from the community from participating in mosque affairs
- Withheld critical information about the mosque’s finances and member records
- Refused to hold democratic elections, claiming the Muslim population in Kobe was too small
Frustrated by this situation, several community members—including Mr. Jamal Garaf—decided to take legal action. When dialogue failed, the matter was brought before the court.
The 2014 Court Agreement: A Pivotal Turning Point
Source:
Kobe District Court – Civil Division 4 – Hearing No. 12
Date: January 23, 2014
Official Document: Reconciliation Record (和解調書)
Under pressure from the court, Mr. Zia, Mr. Yousuf, and the mosque management signed a formal reconciliation agreement that clarified several important matters.
1. Re-establishing the General Assembly
The defendants (mosque administrators) agreed to form a new General Assembly of the mosque under clear membership criteria:
Must have lived in Hyogo Prefecture for more than 3 consecutive years (and possess a valid residence card)
- Must be a male, not a student, aged 23 years or older
- Must have attended Kobe Mosque regularly for over 3 years
- These conditions would be verified by both parties' lawyers and the imam
- 2. Recognition of Jamal's Membership
The mosque administrators acknowledged that Mr. Jamal Garaf met the above criteria and was therefore an official member of the General Assembly.
3. Planning the Next Election
Both sides agreed to work together to draft election rules and procedures for selecting a new mosque board.
The goal was to hold the election before April 30, 2014.
4. Temporary Recognition of the Current Management
Until new elections could be held, Mr. Jamal accepted the existing board (Zia and Yousuf) as a temporary management body only—not a legitimate, elected administration.
5. Jamal’s Right to Access the Mosque
Jamal was granted the right to enter the mosque, perform prayers, and participate in discussions related to the upcoming election.
However, he was prohibited from giving speeches, distributing flyers, filming, or posting any materials inside the mosque.
6. Violation Clause
If Jamal violated any of the conditions (such as distributing flyers), the mosque management had the right to formally ban him from entering the mosque again.
7. Withdrawal of the Lawsuit
Jamal agreed to withdraw the legal case, and the mosque management agreed to the terms of the settlement.
8. Obligation to Inform the Congregation
The court ordered the mosque to explain the contents of this agreement clearly and publicly to all worshippers.
What Does This Agreement Mean?
This was a legally binding court document that compelled the mosque’s leadership to recognize the rights of worshippers and establish a pathway toward transparency and democratic governance.
It marked the first formal acknowledgment that:
The current mosque board had not been elected by the community
- A new General Assembly must be formed based on specific criteria
- Elections for a new board must be held
- It also recognized that Mr. Jamal Garaf had been unfairly excluded and restored his rights to participate in mosque affairs.
In 2014, under court pressure, Mr. Zia and Mr. Yousuf signed a formal agreement acknowledging that their leadership was not elected. They agreed to form a proper General Assembly and hold new elections before the end of April.
But the critical question remains: Did they keep their promise?