Gendered Anti-Muslim Hatred and Islamophobia, Street Based Aggression in Cases Reported to Tell MAMA Is Alarming

Click to View

Gendered Anti-Muslim Hatred and Islamophobia: Tell MAMA Interim Report 2018

The Director of Tell MAMA, Iman Atta OBE, commenting on the 6-month interim report for 2018 stated:

 The gendered intersectionality of anti-Muslim or Islamophobic hate incidents are now well documented through our extensive work. Being a woman and being Muslim are markers for some of this gendered Islamophobia and not a single year has gone by since 2012 when we started work, when the majority of victims of street-based hate crimes have not been women. Of equal concern are the rising levels of aggression that are being shown to victims at a street level. This is deeply concerning and possibly indicates that something is changing for the worst.”

Key Points

  • Tell MAMA recorded a total of 685 reports. Of these reports, 608 were verified as being anti-Muslim or Islamophobic in nature and as having occurred in the UK between January and June 2018. Two-thirds of verified incidents occurred offline, or on a street-level (65.9%, n=401). An offline, or street-level, incident means that the incident  occurred  in-person  between  a  victim and a perpetrator. There were therefore more street incidents of anti-Muslim hatred reported into Tell MAMA.
  • Crimes or incidents that are classified as ‘online’ occurred on social media platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, or on other Internet-based platforms, were verified as having happened within the UK, and account for over a third of reports in 2018 ( 34%, n=207).


  • In 2018, the most widely reported anti-Muslim hate incident was classified as ‘abusive behaviour’ (45.3%, n=182) with the second most reported frequency of incident classed as a ‘physical attack’ (15.5%, n=62). This demonstrated a rise in physical intimidation and actions against Muslim faith institutions and property.) Discrimination (almost 10%, n=40) has shifted to the third most common anti-Muslim incident reported to Tell MAMA between January and June 2018. This category included mistreatment, denial of opportunities or denial of services based on Islamophobic prejudice, some of which was institutional in nature.
  • The realities of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred are complex: involving situational abuse, discriminatory practices and behaviours, hate crime, and the structural and institutional barriers which limit the educational and career aspirations of Muslims. Structural prejudice can impact Muslims when dealing with law enforcement, the criminal justice service, or the misapplication of safeguarding policies. Such acts of hatred, discrimination and racism harm Muslims of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and are not solely the actions of violent bigots who exist on the margins of society. We must instead examine the everyday nature of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred which curtails the agency, aspirations and mobility of Muslims when they are going on their day to day activities.
  • Places of Anti-Muslim Hate Incidents: Consistent with previous years, the largest proportion of street-based incidents took place within public areas such as parks and shopping areas and the second most common place for incidents was public transport networks, such as trams, buses etc.
  • Gendered anti-Muslim Attacks: 2018 data showed that at a street levelwomen remain the number one victim of anti-Muslim hatred with 58%,(n=233) of victims being female, re-affirming previous findings over the years, that anti- Muslim hate or Islamophobia at a street level is also male on female abuse in addition to anti-Muslim hatred and bigotry.

The post Gendered Anti-Muslim Hatred and Islamophobia, Street Based Aggression in Cases Reported to Tell MAMA Is Alarming appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: reports

Video of Racist Bullying in Huddersfield is not Shocking. It Happened to Me Too


I was deeply disturbed by viral footage of a young Syrian refugee being beaten and humiliated at a school in Huddersfield. However, the attack, described by the media as racially motivated, did not shock me. Instead, the video is an ugly reminder of a history of racism in the UK.

Growing up in Huddersfield, I too faced and witnessed prejudice and bullying at school during the 90s. A devastating phenomenon that was even worse for my father’s generation in the 70s and the generation before him in the 60s.

As a British Muslim of Pakistani descent, who is proud to have been raised in Huddersfield, I and other Pakistanis were subjected to racial slurs, hatred and even violent attacks. The same was true for many black and Irish children growing up at the same time. There was no logic or rational basis to the prejudice we faced; it was pure hatred, based on generations of ignorance.

While children are the most cherished members of any society, they can also be a troubling and cruel reflection of the very worse aspects of society. A Primary School child is not genetically racist or prejudiced. He or she comes to discriminate between ethnicity, race and gender on the basis of their socio-economic environment or if they come across hateful material. Furthermore, if the spark of hatred and racism is struck up in the home, then it is large sections of the media and many public commentators who douse it with fuel.

There is ample evidence that media coverage of Muslims and Islam is disproportionately negative. Moreover, common sense tells us that hatred towards Muslims is only increased by headlines such as ‘Muslims’ Sympathy for Jihadis,’ ‘Muslims Tell us How to Run our Schools’ or ‘Muslims Tell British: Go to Hell!’. Despite this, the mainstream media will continue to influence playgrounds by providing platforms to hate preachers such as Tommy Robinson.

In my experience, it would also be fair to say that racism and prejudice are not exclusively a ‘white’ problem. For example, some of the worst hatred I faced was from fellow Muslim children and teenagers who would verbally abuse and assault me and others purely on the basis of sectarianism; because we were Ahmadi Muslims, a peaceful sect of Islam they disagree with.  Racism really does affect us all.

As a lawyer, human rights activist, long-time youth worker and grass root community activist and anti-hate campaigner, I have had the opportunity to work with thousands of young people in Huddersfield and across the breadth of the UK. One of the most powerful lessons I have taken from my experience is that children and even adults, if given the chance have the capacity to learn tolerance, acceptance and plurality.

By way of example, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community runs a series of community projects. These include tree planting, cleaning up fly-tip areas, visiting and helping the elderly, supporting World War II veterans through the Poppy Appeal, responding to floods and other natural disasters, and raising money for the most disadvantaged in British society.

In twenty plus years of carrying out this work, I have witnessed countless people embrace, thank tearfully and befriend young Muslims who took the time to help and value them. Even members of far-right parties have knocked on our doors not to abuse or assault us, but to thank us, shake our hands and tell us that our kindness has caused them to question and even shed their prejudice.

Experience has taught me that the fire of hatred that is raging across the UK and Europe can be extinguished by mutual love, compassion, understanding and kindness. For that to happen, we need to get up and pro-actively meet one another. Living in isolation will only breed ignorance, prejudice and racism.

Farooq Aftab is a member of the British Ahmadi community and works to ensure human rights and justice.

The post Video of Racist Bullying in Huddersfield is not Shocking. It Happened to Me Too appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: Ahmaddiya, Ahmadi Muslims, Farooq Aftab, Huddersfield, Opinions, Syrian Refugee, Tommy Robinson

Countering hatred requires precise vocabulary says Mohammed Amin

Except when using mathematical symbols and equations, we all think in words. When our words are badly defined, our thinking becomes woolly and often illogical. That is why philosophers and lawyers spend so much time on definitions of words, so that the words they use express precisely the underlying concepts they are seeking to convey.

Why is anti-Muslim hatred wrong?

The answer may seem obvious, but it is not. Some Muslims deserve to be hated.

If you do not hate Pakistani extremists who murder women for carrying out polio vaccinations, I worry about your sense of values. More personally, while I do not want to be hated by anyone, if somebody hates me because they consider me to be an insufferable elitist capitalist prig, I must acknowledge that they have the right to do so!

However, hatred becomes wrong when it is applied to entire categories. If a person hates all Muslims, regardless of whether they be murderers of polio vaccinators or research scientists seeking a cure for cancer, then that person is denying human individuality to Muslims. That person will inevitably treat badly Muslims who do not deserve mistreatment. That person may engage in violence against Muslims. Even if the person is not violent, they are likely to mistreat Muslims in other ways such as job discrimination. Such conduct is clearly morally wrong, as well as being illegal under UK law.

The key point is that as human beings, each of us, regardless of nationality, ethnic background or religious beliefs has the fundamental human right to be judged by others as an individual. All forms of bigotry, whether xenophobia against foreigners, racism against ethnic groups or bigotry against religious groups, violates this fundamental human right.

That is why anti-Muslim hatred is wrong.

What is Islamophobia?

Many people use the word “Islamophobia” as if it was a one-word exact substitute for “anti-Muslim hatred.”

Life would be simple if that were true. Sadly, it is not.

The closest one can get to a definition of “Islamophobia” in the modern era (ignoring historical usage, sometimes in foreign languages) is a report funded by the Runnymede Trust and published in 1997. When you read the report, it is clear that Islamophobia was defined by the report as an attitude towards Islam, rather than a way of treating Muslims, let alone more precisely as hatred of Muslims.

From the time the report was issued, many very decent liberal-minded people have pointed out that they are free to have any attitude towards Islam they wish without being accused of anti-Muslim hatred. As a result, endless confusion has been caused when a perfectly decent person such as Polly Toynbee chooses to self-describe as an Islamophobe. Some Muslims have then concluded that she has developed a hatred of Muslims, which is simply not the case.

The Runnymede Trust published a new report in 2017 with an “improved” definition of Islamophobia. While this 2017 definition is better than the 1997 definition, it has its own problems. Most importantly though, if when using the word Islamophobia, you need to specify whether you mean the word’s 1997 definition or the word’s 2017 definition, you will never get anywhere.

Accordingly, I believe the word “Islamophobia” should never be used except when debating the meaning of the word itself.

At its most fundamental, I do not care very much what other people think about Islam. While I would like as many people as possible to appreciate the many wonderful things about Islam that lead me to be a Muslim, I recognise that many people prefer to have other religions or to have no religion at all. If someone thinks that Muhammad was a false prophet who concocted the Quran using locally available Jewish and Christian textual sources, they are free to say so. I would prefer them to avoid using rude or abusive language, but if they are rude my key remedy is to cease to associate with them. The law should not get involved.

Criticising Islam as a disguised way of expressing anti-Muslim hatred

While people are free to criticise Islam as much as they wish, it is quite clear when you listen to some people that their professed criticism or hatred of Islam is actually a disguised way of expressing anti-Muslim hatred.

An analogy which has been much in the news in 2018 is the distinction between being anti-Zionist and being antisemitic. Some people argue that anti-Zionists are always antisemites. Others argue that anti-Zionists are never antisemites.

Both assertions are wrong. Some people hold very strong anti-Zionist views without in any way hating Jews. Conversely, when you listen to some other anti-Zionists, it is quite clear after a few moments that these people really hate Jews. It all depends upon the facts.

Similarly, there are some people who say very critical things about Islam as a religion who I am confident bear no malice towards Muslims as a general category of people. Conversely, when you read what others say about Islam, it is crystal clear that they despise or even hate all Muslims and deny Muslims their fundamental human right to be assessed as individuals. It all depends on the facts.

Mohammed Amin is Chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum. He is writing in a personal capacity. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Tell MAMA.

The post Countering hatred requires precise vocabulary says Mohammed Amin appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: Opinions, Runnymede Trust

A statement on the ‘No2h8’ crowdfunding campaign

Faith Matters launched a crowdfunding campaign this month in the hope raising money for a poster campaign to raise awareness about hate crime, its impacts, and to report it. The function was to encourage individuals and witnesses to come forward to report incidents and crimes, given that all strands of hate crime (Islamophobia, antisemitism, transgender identity, sexual orientation, and disability) are equally important. It is why the campaign brought together the hate crime expertise of Galop, the CST, Tell MAMA, Trans Media Watch, and Dimensions.

The campaign aims to bring in voices of the public who come from a variety of backgrounds and identities and united in a singular message: be upstanders, not bystanders.

During the filming and production of the campaign, participants were informed of the aims of the campaign led by Faith Matters, its partners & affiliates (including Tell MAMA, Galop, the CST, Tell MAMA, Trans Media Watch, and Dimensions), before consent forms were signed. All participants signed informed consent forms from Faith Matters, which allows Faith Matters, its affiliates, partners, and agents, to use their images and/or interview statements in its publications or other media activities. No objections were raised during the filming process or after its completion.

Before the campaign went live on Crowdfunder, participants were able to view the text and images (which included the logos of all partners involved, including Tell MAMA) to ensure they were happy with the final product. At this stage, no participant had raised any objections to how the campaign, its partners & affiliates used their images or videos.

One participant then tweeted a link to crowdfunding page on November 16, with the all campaign partners tagged in (including Tell MAMA). This participant favourited a tweet from Tell MAMA, a partner in the ‘No2h8’ campaign, a day earlier.

Tell MAMA, as other partners did, shared the campaign on Facebook on November 16. Subsequent comments confirm that on November 16 and November 18 this participant was aware of Tell MAMA’s use of their image in the campaign but raised no objections (privately or publicly) until November 21.

We even thanked them publicly for sharing the campaign in a tweet on November 16, but the participant has since deleted this tweet.



Tell MAMA takes any such allegation very seriously and spoke with the production team responsible and the participant.

The production team confirmed that consent forms were signed and that participants were made aware of the partners involved. Therefore, we invite this participant to reach out to us directly, and, if requested to do so, we will remove them from the campaign. We had hoped that such concerns were raised privately first before any such tweets were made.

Nor do we accept the characterisation of our work in the participant’s tweet on November 21.

Tell MAMA has continued to challenge examples of anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia from politicians and members of the Conservative Party. We called for an inquiry into Islamophobia within the party following the London Mayoral election in 2016, and we have documented other examples of Islamophobia in the party, either in blogs, in meetings, or on social media. We, therefore, challenge the assertion that we have scapegoated Muslim communities when our annual reports continue to demonstrate a clear rise in Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred – be it in crimes, incidents, or acts of discrimination.

The post A statement on the ‘No2h8’ crowdfunding campaign appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: News, No2h8, Opinions

Tell MAMA Submission – A Working Definition of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim Hatred_Prejudice

Click to View

Click to View

Tell MAMA is delighted to contribute to the APPG on British Muslims inquiry into a working definition on Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred. We hope that our submission can help further the debate.

Now, more than ever, it is important to define what is a growing problem, in the hope that with further understanding, that we can support Muslims and challenge institutional and non-institutional forms of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred.

Our recent annual reports, published in 2018 and 2017, which cover the 2016 and 2017 reporting cycles, have used the terms Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred (and/or prejudice) interchangeably, partly for brevity because the term is established in existing academic literature and used by police forces nationwide when logging hate incidents and crimes.

Tell MAMA believes any definition of Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred should always centre on the voices and experiences of Muslims. We welcome further understanding of this issue in the hope that the debate can move beyond semantics whilst ensuring that fundamental rights are taken into consideration. From a research perspective, John Gerring argued: “to deprive the social science community of certain words, or of certain uses of commonly understood words, is bound to create confusion, and also to limit the usefulness of social science as a way of apprehending the world.”

Some perpetrators in our dataset demonstrate a disproportionate hatred of Islam which often has little to do with attacking or abusing Muslims directly. Therefore, we cannot always detach how some display a hatred of Islam from a hatred of Muslims. We affirm the fundamental right of freedom of expression and speech, but it comes with a responsibility to not harm others or threaten or incite violence.

Previously Tell MAMA has used a reworked version of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), working definition of antisemitism: “A certain perception of Muslims, which may be expressed as hatred or outward hostility towards Muslims. Hatred may take the form of anti-Muslim rhetoric and physical manifestations that are targeted towards Muslims (or non-Muslim individuals considered to be sympathetic to Muslims) and/or their property; or towards Muslim community institutions or religious and other related social institutions”.

Having flexibility in our definition, we feel, allows our work to document and evidence how Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice are situational, criminal, hateful, and importantly, structural. We know that there are potential obstacles to achieving outcomes for victims of Islamophobic abuse, including institutional discrimination, widespread prejudice, and social barriers to reporting incidents and accessing public services. But, crucially, understanding how structural inequalities and institutional discrimination can help us understand how Muslims are often disadvantaged when they engage with law enforcement agencies and the courts due to institutional discrimination.

The post Tell MAMA Submission – A Working Definition of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim Hatred_Prejudice appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: reports

Pregnant Muslim woman and family attacked by a racist couple

Thames Valley Police have arrested two people in connection with an Islamophobic attack which left a pregnant Muslim woman and her husband requiring hospitalisation for minor injuries, Tell MAMA can reveal.

The incident occurred on November 18 at around 13:00 GMT, outside of a Tesco store in the Oxfordshire area.

Speaking to Tell MAMA, the husband, who wishes to remain anonymous, described how his family were approached by an abusive couple who began shouting at them, in the presence of their 3-year-old child.

He described how the couple had them ‘f*cking foreigners’ who ‘did not’ belong here, and that the law ‘does not’ allow them to be here.

The abusive woman and her male partner then struck him in the face and across his back.

His wife, who is seven months pregnant, was struck across the face by the woman and dragged to the floor. During the unprovoked assault, the perpetrator kept trying to tear off her hijab.

Her husband shouted: “Leave my wife alone, she’s pregnant”, but the perpetrator replied that she ‘did not care’ and continued to try to violently remove her hijab.

Witnesses to the attack intervened by calling the emergency services and ensuring that their young child, who was kicked by one of the perpetrators, was kept away from further violence, and helped the pregnant woman to stand.

The male perpetrator attempted to flee by returning to his car but was blocked by the husband, who insisted that the man was ‘going nowhere’. He was, however, able to drive off, but not before he had made repeated efforts to harm the Muslim man, who had fallen onto the bonnet of the car, by repeatedly stopping and starting the vehicle.

It took Thames Valley Police around thirty minutes to locate and arrest the perpetrators, according to the husband, who added that their unborn baby was unhurt, and both he and his wife had suffered minor injuries.

The perpetrators are described being white and in their early thirties.

You can get advice through our confidential and free helpline on 0800 456 1226. Or through our free iOS or Android apps. Report through our online form. Or contact us via WhatsApp on 0734 184 6086.



The post Pregnant Muslim woman and family attacked by a racist couple appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: assault, hate crime, Hijab, News, Thames Valley Police

Blasphemy, based upon Islamic theology or more precisely Islamic religious ethics or jurisprudence, Shariah

By Rashad Ali,

No one can have missed the events in Pakistan. Following the trial, and intended release of Asia Bibi, who was accused of insulting the Messenger of Islam, was locked up for 8 years, during which, we have seen the Murder of Salman Taseer, a former Governor and Statesman in Pakistan for daring to question the Blasphemy laws, an then the subsequent conviction of his murderer, and then the practical beautification of his murderer, we were informed that she would finally be released after three judges found her not guilty. This was not the end. The judges have been declared ‘wajib ul-qatl’ i.e. a death sentence has been imposed on them. Senior clerics have called for their re-trial and after riots, demonstrations, mysterious murders of senior clerics, and others denouncing the State system’s validity and calling for sub-judicial murder, the government of Imran Khan, after strong words of condemnation have caved in and allowed for a re-trial.


What this article seeks to do is understand the issues of blasphemy that have arisen in recent times, whether terrorist claims to murdering alleged blasphemers, conservative clerics positions on insults to the Prophet by depicting the Prophet of Islam, and the claims and foundations of blasphemy laws within pre-modern (medieval and pre-medieval in fact) Islamic jurisprudence.

What is Shariah for Muslims?

Muslims have defined this as the ‘speech of the divine related to human conduct’[i], which is often translated into Islamic law. It is also often used interchangeably with what is known as fiqh or the ‘knowledge or understanding of the rulings of the shariah which have been interpreted from specific scriptural sources’[ii].  The difference between the two though is considerable and the mixing of the two is one that creates an analytical problem. Fiqh, for Muslim specialists of religious jurisprudence or ethics, is a human understanding of the shariah. This distinction is key in preventing the essentialising of Islam, or the belief that one specific understanding of the religious teaching IS Islam.

It is important to understand that there are many diverse interpretations of the shariah i.e. the religious texts, be they verses from the Qur’an, prophetic traditions or citations of consensus, or the rationale in these texts or their purposive content, particularly when seeking guidance on human behaviour. Hence there is a multiplicity of schools of thought and divergent understandings. While the four major schools of thought, or madhahib (or madhab in singular), are considered to provide Sunni Muslims with sound orthopraxic rulings, many others are, in fact, considered acceptable as interpretations for Muslims to follow and apply in their life. Supplementing the formal positions of these madhahib, even interpretations of well-known companions of the Prophet or major scholars from the early generations[iii] are often cited. This is evident in Muslim practice of Islam, whether in relation to prayers and how to perform them or related to questions of law, such as how to deal with issues that are of interest to us here, namely apostasy or how to deal with those that insult the Prophet of Islam.

In fact, a key aspect of the ideology and the claims of extremists is that their understanding of Islam is the only sound or correct understanding of Islam or Islamic rulings. It is also one of the problems that both critics[iv] of Islam and extremists often fall into – either essentialising Islamic rulings and “law” to the most extreme view or claiming that the most reasonable or direct reading of Islamic law requires Islam itself to be reformed[v].

An example of such extremism can be seen in a lecture delivered by al-Awlaki who not only misrepresents the views laid out in pre-modern works, but also lays claim that this is the only sound view of Islamic religious ethic as transmitted through Muslim tradition and the only possible or sound view of Islam. He argues that those responsible for insulting the Prophet of Islam should be assassinated and that Muslims have a duty to engage in such murderous acts as a means to compete for the pleasure of the Prophet and of God, and a fundamentally a religious duty[vi].

The classical position on blasphemy and Islamic law

Blasphemy in the context we are speaking of is specifically related to disparaging, denigrating, or insulting the Prophet. In relation to cartoons, they are seen as a disrespectful portrayal of the Prophet of Islam and in some instances gratuitously insulting.  Whilst much has been said of the issue of depicting the Prophet in imagery, it is to some extent necessary to differentiate the issue of images of living beings, portrayal of the Prophet, and the issue of blasphemy as defined above. The former was traditionally forbidden by Sunni Muslims scholarship. This is based upon the view held by apparent majority of traditional Sunni schools that any image of a living person or one that possess a soul is forbidden i.e. depictions of animals too. This however, is not an absolute consensus. Even among the early scholars, some had notably taken a position that two-dimensional images or portraits of living people were not forbidden. In fact, it has become the popular view with such an edict given by the Mufti of Libya, Sadiq al-Ghiryani, which actually in this instance despite the Mufti’s own Salafist leanings represents the Maliki school[vii].  It was also, according to Imam al-Nawawi[viii], a view among the salaf, or the earliest Muslims, though one that he does not consider as sound in the Shafi school, even though it was one which was held by major Shafi jurists such as Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni[ix] (al-Nawawi is a jurist who is considered the official representative of the later Shafi school and widely respected by all scholars and even Islamists).

This dichotomy was due to the distinction between merely two-dimensional pictures and three-dimentional statues. Though they were both prohibited, this was, according to the early hadith scholar and jurist Khattabi[x], because they were worshipped besides God. It was this aspect that was considered problematic, even as the Prophet, according to sound hadith narrations, relaxed the prohibition on two-dimensional objects. This discussion is related by the major hadith master Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his magnum opus, and commentary of the hadith collection of Imam Bukhari[xi] , considered the soundest narrations of prophetic statements and acts[xii]. Still, he does take the view of the majority, which is that it was forbidden to depict any human being fully in a form that could be recognised as a human being, even as he mentions the Prophetic tradition relaxing such a prohibition.

The Maliki school, as stated earlier, has taken this as a standard view, mentioned in of several views of the school by al-Zarqani in his commentary on the Muwatta, the famous collection of traditions, legal judgements and hadith as accepted by the early Muslims of the city of Medina and collected by Imam Malik bin Anas, the eponym of the Maliki madhab[xiii].  This does not necessarily translate into a permission to depict the Prophet, but it does raise the issue of its possibility, as it doesn’t appear to be a question that is explicitly discussed widely in Islamic jurisprudence[xiv]. Scholars also mention that according to some jurists the prohibition itself was considered by some to apply only to making idols and keeping idols not images[xv]

Historically, though, there does appear to be evidence to suggest that Muslims did have devotional portraits and pictures. These are still available to be viewed around the world. This was seen historically both among Sunnis and Shia cultures and specifically, but not exclusively, the Ottomans[xvi].

Again this does not in any way negate the fact that most Muslims would not see that the cartoons would have been acceptable in Islamic terms, or that Muslims should not take offense. All it demonstrates is that there are diverse views about what appears to be, at first sight, an obvious and apparent consensus. Similarly, Muslims have had various reactions to the latest depiction in Charlie Hebdo’s first magazine after the murders of their staff. This was seen in the debate on the BBC’s ‘This Week in Politics’[xvii], where there were diametrically opposed perspectives on the latest cartoon by Muslims themselves.

The Rulings on blasphemy

Classical Islamic jurisprudence similarly has a number of different positions on legal sanctions and the various complexities in the manner in which they are implemented. Unsurprisingly, these positions are at various ends of the legal and political spectrum and manifest themselves in different understandings of the world. As it was explained to this author by a mufti, or specialist in issuing religious edicts, Muslim society was historically centred around religion and organised society around it. Blasphemy was not merely a violation of the sacred in religious terms but also was considered a political act aimed at undermining the glue that bound society, differentiating loyal subjects from those whose loyalties laid elsewhere.

In such imperial times, it was also the case that the norm in political life was warfare and imperial expansion. Conflict on political, and therefore religious, identities was the norm. As such, undermining the religious foundations was seen as undermining the foundations of the society, possibly leading to treason and war. This is the way in which Muslims perceived their society and looked at preserving their integrity and empire. In such a context, blasphemy was considered a capital punishment necessary for the fundamental preservation of not just belief but the integrity of Muslim society as a whole, or so some jurists had argued.

This was and can be seen as an extreme perspective in modern multicultural societies. Alongside other rules such as those on apostasy, this perspective was also viewed in the same light by scholars such as Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut, the former rector of al-Azhar and widely respected mufti who lived through the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. He hence viewed them completely inappropriate today, against the principles of Islam, and against the decisive verses of the Qur’an, which gave absolute freedom of faith and forbade coercing people into embracing the Muslim faith[xviii].

This was how major companions such as the second Caliph Umar bin al-Khattab understood the religion and condemned others for killing apostates even those that joined rebel armies and fought against Muslims. This was also the understanding of the some of the major scholars from the salaf such as the likes of Umar bin Abdul Aziz. the famed Sufyan al-Thawri, and Ibrahim al-Nakha’I as documented by major Salafi scholars such as Imam Shawkani in his Nayl ul-Awtar.[xix]

Nevertheless, today’s extremists and conservatives who do not wish to contextualise their view still advocate the pre-modern point of view, often without considering the caveats laid down by pre modern jurists as should be demonstrated through this paper.


Evidences used to substantiate this viewpoint – A critique

The key evidences put forward are generally found in specific texts or statements attributed to the Prophet of Islam and incidents in the time of the Prophet. The most famous ones are apparently commands of the Prophet and general rulings. There is a statement that is attributed to the Prophet saying, “whoever insults the Prophet should be killed/kill them”. This is an oft-cited narration from those that advocate such a view, such as Taqi al-Din al-Subki of the Shafi madhab.

However, even these authors are aware of the fact that such narrations are at least considered highly problematic to say the least, if not outright false. al-Subki himself states that if these narrations were sound, they would be the strongest evidence for this interpretation, yet he himself cites the Shafi hadith master who states in no uncertain terms that “this hadith is [completely] unknown” because Ibn al-Salah did not find a chain for it at all. al-Subki cites a similar narration by the prophet’s cousin Ali bin Abi Talib that says “whoever insults a Prophet, then you should kill them”. He recognises this narration as being equally problematic and cites Ibn Hibban and others as having criticised the narrators. In fact Ibn Hibban stated that Abdul Aziz bin Hasan bin Zabala discovered unfounded narrations from the ‘Madinans’ that were not to be relied upon at all. al-Dhahabi also cites other narrators that are problematic and criticised them. Hence the contemporary Salafi hadith scholar and editor of the work, Salim bin Eid bin Muhammad al-Hilali, states that the narration is fabricated (mawdu) and should be forbidden to be attributed to the Prophet.

Interestingly, al-Subki states that if these narrations were authentic, then they would clearly provide a foundation for the ruling and executing of someone for insulting the Prophet, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, without the lengths he had to go to in the book to attempt to derive such a ruling[xx]. This makes the hadith side of the evidence, or at least the alleged explicit injunctions and declarations of the rulings, unfounded or weak at best.

Al-Awlaki also attempts to cite the rulings from Qadi Iyad al-Yahsubi[xxi], the Maliki judge, as a general ruling advocating murder. However, what should be clear is that neither Qadi Iyad, al-Subki, or even Ibn Taymiyya[xxii], whom he cites extensively, actually saw this as a vigilante action or justification for terrorism. The ruling was one that could only apply after being established in a court and applied by the judge[xxiii]. Iyad states that it could only be applied if established (in thabit) which was explained by Khafaji the commentator as bil-shahada aw iqrar– or “by testimony or confession”. Furthermore, it has been claimed that historically when there were cases of deliberate blasphemy aimed purely at creating martyrs for the sake of making a point, the judges in Muslim Spain, from where Qadi Iyad hailed, stopped applying the penalty so as not to create martyrs, as the purpose of the ruling was not merely to kill people for martyrdom’s sake[xxiv].

This was also justified on the sound narrations of the Prophet not exacting any penalty for blasphemy and moreover forbidding his companions from doing so against non-Muslims who had cursed him. Thereafter, those that assumed there was a punishment sought to reconcile this, arguing that the Prophet dropped the punishment in order to soften their hearts. So for the sake of the Maslaha, or public interest, it was acceptable to not apply such punishments.

In fact that was the explanation given by Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani of the hadith (whose authenticity is agreed upon), in the collection of Imam al-Bukhari[xxv]. Hence even according to these jurists, the course of action was aimed at bringing people together and for a public benefit, rather than applying punishments indiscriminately. The former was not necessarily the correct application of their fiqh or subjective interpretation of the shariah. The maslaha of public interest and bringing harmony to the society was more important and congruent with the purpose and spirit of Islam, at least according to the Prophet. This is definitely not the attitude of terrorists such as those that we have seen.

The proponents of such a view also argue through incidents that took place or allegedly took place during the Prophet’s own life. Commonly cited at least are two incidents including the order to execute Kab bin Ashraf and the infamous story of the killing of Asma bint Marwan. Regarding the narration of Asma bint Marwan, despite the fact that the narrations themselves are contradictory, the narrations themselves were also considered fabrications, as they were attributed to infamous narrators of hadith known to fabricate stories.

Ibn Adiy states in his Kamil fil-Duafa wal-ilal ul-Hadith that one of the narrators, “Muhammad bin al-Hajjaj… was accused of just forging hadith“. Ibn ul-Jawzi the jurist and hadith scholar in his Kitab ul-Ilal likewise quotes Yahya bin Ma’in the famous contemporary of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, eponym of the Hanbali school, as saying this narrator was a “liar and repugnant (khabith),” al-Daraqutni considered him a “total liar,” and Imam al-Bukhari stated in no uncertain terms that he was a “munkar” or one who rejected hadith. As such as he is the only narrator to transmit the narration from Majlad from Shabi to Ibn Abbas, leaving it an extremely weak a story or apocryphal, i.e., a fabricated narration.  These discussions can be found in the works of Salafi hadith scholar al-Albani, considered by them as their major hadith scholar of recent times, in his collection of weak and fabricated hadith[xxvi].

As for the incident with Kab bin Ahsraf, al-Awlaki tries to assert that there is no other reading of the incident that should be considered as reasonable. This actually quite difficult to accept as it is such a well-known figure from Muslim historians. He was killed, as other scholars have asserted, for a number of reasons, including conspiring with the Meccans in their war against the new city-state in Medina, which was revealed by others when they converted, i.e., an act of treason. He was also narrated to have attempted to assassinate the Prophet and hence fled and was later killed for those reasons[xxvii]. In fact the famous exegete and jurist of the Hanafi school of fiqh, Badr ul-Din al-Ayni, states in his commentary on Imam al-Bukhari’s collection of hadith that “he [Kab] was not killed merely for insulting the [Prophet], but rather it was surely for the fact that he was an aide/spy against him, and conspired with those who fought wars against him, and supported them”[xxviii]. Hence the facts disagree with the explanation of the events and incidents as presented by al-Awlaki, these are well known and well documented in the prophetic biography and hadith collections, hence commentators like al-Ayni, which are relied upon by Muslim jurists, explicitly refute the assertion made by others.


Alternative positions

Imam al-Ayni is also representative of the Hanafi madhab, which states not merely that there was no such punishment for blasphemy but that such an action by the authorities was forbidden. They use the above evidences in the Sahih of Imam al-Bukhari which stated that the Prophet was cursed by non-Muslims and yet he did not do anything. When people asked if they should kill them, the Prophet explicitly forbade it. Badr al-Din al-Ayni states that this was the opinion of Imam Muhammad bin Isma’il al-Bukhari[xxix] and he stated so by placing these hadith under the chapter of “Dealing with non-Muslims under Muslim governance who insulted the Prophet such as by saying ‘death be upon you’.” This was his fiqh, as al-Ayni explained. This was also the view of Imam Abu Hanifa the eponym of the largest school of fiqh[xxx] based on the soundest hadith on the subject – ad certainly the dominant school in countries like Pakistan.

al-Ayni also explained that people are not punished or killed for greater than such a blasphemy and insult against the Prophet of Islam, which was from an Islamic perspective that they were committing shirk or did not give God His due, but rather associating others in His lordliness in Islamic terms. Yet this was not deemed a criminal act and they were not punished for it. This was why they were not punished for the blasphemy in the time of the Prophet as that was a greater matter[xxxi].

It was also the position of Sufyan al-Thawri[xxxii] another major scholar who had his own school or madhab [xxxiii] and was a contemporary of Abu Hanifa. Additionally, it was one of the transmissions from the Shafi madhab according to the Qadi Abu Tayyib, who was a well-respected jurist and judge of the Shafi madhab[xxxiv]. Moreover Ibn Taymiyya, the Hanbali jurist also cites the Hanbali scholar Imam al-Hulwani as stating that was also a view attributable to Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal.[xxxv] So it is a position that can be found across all Sunni schools.

There is also an additional consideration from the Shafi school that advocates capital punishment. It does not consider that such punishments applicable upon people if states had treaties to not apply such punishments, such as international treaties which would have been signed making such agreements. In such a scenario, then they mention that if they were to make an agreement to allow them to call to their beliefs or if they had an agreement that said their covenants and treaties were not repudiated by such acts as blasphemy or the above, then the mutamad, a relied upon position in the madhab, was that such a Treaty could not be violated and remained intact without the punishment being applied. This was stated by Shaykh Zakariya al-Ansari in his commentary on the Minhaj[xxxvi].

However this is all not relevant to universally agreed upon rulings across Sunni schools for Muslims living in a country that was predominantly non-Muslim. In those cases, they would have had to obey the social agreements that they entered into implicitly by living in such countries, a “covenant of security” which would apply more so today living in multicultural societies.[xxxvii] Effectively, international agreements would preclude having such impositions upon people according to the agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – of which Pakistan is a signatory – and others protecting people of different religions, nations, and their citizens, and would be considered when seeking to apply such punishments according to this point of view.

So we should be clear then on the following:

There were those that considered such matters as serious crimes that required a capital punishment. The actions of terrorists and extremists seeking to carry out such actions are not justified even by such pre-modern interpretations that believed that there were punishments for these acts. Even then, the modern world and political realities would make the same scholars see that the political agreements that we make preclude such an approach according to their own interpretation of the Shariah i.e. their own madhab of fiqh.

In fact it may well be that the Maslaha and the purposes of the shariah and the spirit of Islamic teachings does not favour such an approach and stopping such punishments would be considered perfectly consistent to the understanding of the same jurists and schools.

The basis for blasphemy laws is not necessarily the most authentic view, and certainly not the only view of pre-modern Islam. In fact, the opposite position i.e. there is no such law for blasphemy. is held across various schools of thought and madhahib from across the spectrum – which includes major jurists and hadith scholars even of the more scriptural traditionalists (ahl al-hadith). Some may have described these scholars as scriptural literalists, but it was through their literalism that they opposed such punishments.

None of the transmitted positions of Islam do not way justify the horrific acts of terrorism. The ideological and pseudo-theological narrative of al-Qaeda, ISIS, and their pseudo clerics do not have a justification for their positions and should ironically be seen as not medieval but modern and heretical distortions, of pre-modern theology, combined with the modern tactics of terror.[xxxviii]


Concluding thoughts

Ibn Daqiq al-Eid, the famous scholar who almost uniquely was considered a jurist in his own right able to deliver edicts – fatawa – from the sources directly and derive from more than madhab, wrote extensively on hadith and Islamic jurisprudence. His works are known for independent rigour, fairness in dealing with various position and schools, and the presentation and disclosure of differing perspectives. He was also known for personally striving for justice and when, in his time, there occurred an accusation of blasphemy taken against another scholar, he defended them and challenged those injustices even as they were made in the name of orthodox religious interpretations, i.e., fiqh or ruling of the Shariah.

Ibn Daqiq al-Eid commented extensively on the well-known hadith of the Prophet, relaying that among seven quintessential commands given to the companions was to come to the ‘aid of the oppressed’ – ‘Nasr ul-Mathlum’. One of the points he makes is that justice should not come in rushing to seek to apply punishments on people. He gives a scenario of when aiding the oppressed may become a duty: when two judges are present in a sitting/hearing (majlis) and they differ in their positions on a case which may involve the taking of life or punishing and/or condemning someone as a blasphemer or as a heretic (zindeeq), then the one who can see that he could prevent the punishment/condemnation or taking of life should rush forth to protect the individual from the harsh judgement of the other. This means that the one who could protect this person would be fulfilling the command of the Prophet to come to the aid of the oppressed[xxxix].

We need to challenge the narrative of extremists and highlight its ideological flaws, its simplistic view of the world and skewed nature of politics, and dismantle the pseudo-religious arguments. We need to prevent not just of those on the Islamist right but also those on the far-right from seeking to essentialise Islam, helping create and further cement civil tensions, or even justifying attacks on Muslims. The middle ground must be radically fought for.

Inconsistencies and contradictions must be addressed at a wider level so that justice is not only done as a society but, as the saying goes, must be seen to be done


[i] These are common definitions taken by scholars and specialists of Usul ul-Fiqh or first principles related to understanding and deriving ‘fiqh’ – definition to follow -. This was given by scholars such as the famous jurist al-Ghazali and specialist in Usul Ibn Hajib, page 272 in his Mukhtasar muntaha al-su’l wal-amal fi ilmay al-Usul wal-Jadal published by Dar Ibn Hazm, Beirut – Lebanon 2006

[ii] Page 15, al-Bahr ul-Muhit fi Usul ul-Fiqh, published by Dar ul-Kutb l-Ilmiyya, Beirut-Lebanon 2007. al-Zarkashi, Badr ul-Din Muhammad bin Bahadir, bin Abdullah died 794

[iii] The famous scholar and jurist Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, who is considered to be the soundest retention of the Shafi school, or madhab, one of the most widely followed of the Muslim schools of jurisprudence, states this in a Fatwa or religious edict where he states that this was the position of the early major scholars including the celebrated Imam al-Iz bin Abdul-Salam and Taj al-Din Ibn al-Subki and others. Whilst some did restricted it to the four schools the soundest view was that it was not restricted. This is recorded in the collection fatawa or non-binding religious edicts, in the chapter on ‘Qada’ or juridical verdicts, page 308 volume 4, al-Fatawa al-Kubra al-Fiqhiya ala madhab Imam al-Shafi published by Dar ul-Kutub ul-ilmiyya, 1997, al-Haytami, Shihab al-Din Ahmed bin Mohammad bin Ali bin Hajar al-Makki died 1565

[iv] A good example of this is the new atheist Sam Harris who describes Islam as ‘all fringe and no centre’ an that Islam itself is extreme. Whilst this is an intellectually problematic approach and indeed one stooped in simplistic assumptions, it is a good example of the prevalent type of criticism of Islam.

[v] An attempt to demonstrate that the hermeneutic approaches are not literalistic nor are they free of considerations of natural law, inductive scrutiny and principle based interpretations, which deal with or historically have dealt with problematic statements in scripture, is James A C Brown’s ‘Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and choices of interpreting the Prophet’s legacy’

[vi] The Ruling on insulting the Prophet

[vii] The various views, ranging from permissibility; prohibition; permission of incomplete pictures or without the head; that which was in a venerated position was forbidden – are all mentioned, with the third preferred by al-Zarqani in his commentary on the Muwatta: page 429, volume 4, Shar’h ul-Zarqani ala Muwatta al-Imam Malik, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut – Lebanon 1997, Mohammad Abdul Baqi bin Yusuf al-Zarqani Died 1122

[viii] Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya bin Sharaf al-Nawawi died in 1277 and officially is considered the reference for the soundest position in general, of the later Shafi school. A scholar who is cited by Sufis, traditional scholars, and respected by salafis and Islamists as well as across all schools of Sunni jurisprudence

[ix] Imam al-Haramayn Diya ul-Din Abdul Malik bin Yusuf al-Juwayni, was the teacher of the famed mystic, scholastic theologian and jurist al-Ghazali. He was a theologian )mutakallim) and legal theoretician (usuli) and jurist. His works on jurisprudence bridge the gap between the early and later school and he is considered a major scholar within the Shafi madhab. He died in 1085  

[x] Abu Sulayman Hamd bin Mohammad bin Ibrahim known as Khattabi was a scholar of hadith literature as well as Fiqh and theology. He is widely quoted by scholars such as Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and al-Nawawi in their respective commentaries. Died 988

[xi] Muhammad bin Isma’il al-Bukhari is considered by Sunni Muslims one of the greatest of scholars of Hadith or collections of reports of the Prophet’s sayings, actions or incidents in his life. His collection is considered the soundest of collections of Hadith followed by those of Imam Muslim bin al-Hajjaj. Died 870

[xii] pages 2623 to 2629, volume 3, Fat’h ul-Bari bi-Shar’h Sahih al-Bukhari, published by Bait ul-Afkar ul-Dawliya, Jordan and Saudi Arabia 2004. al-Asqalani, Hafidh Ibn Hajar died 1372

[xiii] See footnote 46 for elaboration.

[xiv] Shia clerics have issued edicts stating that it was in fact permissible in principle to do so, as stated by a leading shia cleric Ayatollah Sistani. There has been some debate some of these issues among Sunni clerics also in modern times.

[xv] This is discussed by major medieval Shafite jurists such as Imam al-Zarkashi and Imam Sha’rani on their respective works on Islamic Principles or Qawa’id ul-Shariah, see page 391of ‘Maqasid al-Sanniya fi-Bayan al-Qawaid al-Shariah’ of Imam Andul Wahhab bin Ahmad al-Sha’rani died 973H, published by Dar al-Fat’h 2016

[xvi] Drawing the Prophet: Islam’s hidden Mohammad images


[xviii] Pages 280-281, Islam – Aqida wal-Shariah, published by Dar ul-Shuruq Cairo – Egypt 1992. Imam al-Akbar Mahmud Shaltut Died 1963

[xix] for a good discussion on the sources and understanding of early Muslims.

[xx] pages 1180119 al-Subki

[xxi] Qadi Iyad bin Musa al-Yahsubi was a famous judge and jurist and scholar of Hadith traditions from Muslim Spain. He was known for his work on Prophetology commonly known as the Shifa and his commentary on the Hadith collection of Imam Muslim bin al-Hajjaj, al-Jami al-Sahih, which was widely  cited by ater scholars and upon which Imam al-Nawawi heavily relied. Died in 1149

[xxii] Ibn Taymiyya was a controversial figure among orthodox Muslims of his time. He did not always conform to the prevailing consensus on matters of creed, religious practice and political edicts and was imprisoned several times. Famously, he criticised the Mongols’ conversion to Islam as insincere and as a means of justifying the occupation of Muslim territory. His life and works are often seen as contradictory: at times he appears to advocate tolerance of differences in juristic positions; other times he ascribes deviancies to people in minor juristic disputes. His student, the polymath Imam al-Dhahabi, stated that he took a more tolerant view towards the end of his life. He is considered the putative authority of modern jihadism and an inspiration for Qutbist Islamists as well as austere Salafi-Wahabism. Some believe this to be a misreading of his edicts: his fatwa concerning the status of the city of Mardin, for example, was allegedly subject to a copyist error changing the meaning. While many believe he wrote that Muslims should be treated as they deserve and unbelievers should be fought as they deserve, the original edition only contains yu`a’mal (should be treated) which was mistakenly rendered yuqatal (should be fought) in a subsequent edition. Nevertheless, the incorrect fatwa has been used to justify indiscriminate violence, terrorism and the excommunication of Muslims; and Ibn Taymiyya remains a reference point among contemporary Jihadists. For a thorough study of his thinking and work see Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, eds Y. Rapoport and S. Ahmed (Karachi: Oxford University Press 2010) [footnote taken from  ‘A Guide to Refuting Jihadism’, by Rashad Ali and Hannah Stuart]

[xxiii] See pages 270 onwards of Khafaji’s commentary on the Shifa of Qadi Iyad, Nism ul-Riyadh fi shar’h ul-Shifa Qadi Iyyad of Shihab al-Din Khafaji volume 6 Dar ul-Kutub ilmiyya

[xxiv] In the article Shaykh Hamza Yusuf attempts to explain that some elements will inevitably react to what he sees as provocation and praises the Popes pronouncements. He also cites the incidents of the ‘Martyrs of Cordoba’. There are of course hugely disputed versions of these events.

[xxv] Pages 3081-3082, volume 3. al-Asqalani

[xxvi] These discussions can be found in the major collections of Hadith analysis by these authors. Many of the comments can be found in Nasir al-Din al-Albani’s collection of weak and fabricated Hadith. whilst he has been criticized he is in good company here with major masters of Hadith scholarship throughout the ages. See his collection Silsilat al-ahadith al-da’ifa wal-mawdu’a wa atharuha al-sayyi’a fil-Ummah, published by Maktabat al-Arif, Riyadh – Saudi Arabia 1988. Died 1999

[xxvii] These reasons were elucidated by the scholar and Qur’an specialist Nouman Ali Khan, My thoughts on Paris Shooting. He also elucidates that this understanding is in complete violation of the Qur’an in multiple verses and the entire life of the Prophet in Mecca and Medina

[xxviii] page 121, volume 24, Umdat ul-Qari Shar’h Sahih al-Bukhari, published by Dr Ihya Turath al-Arabi Beirut – Lebanon 2003, al-Ayni, Badr ul-Din Abu Muhammad Mahmood bin Ahmad. Died 1360

[xxix] Page 120, al-Ayni.

[xxx] The perplexing factor here is that Pakistan is arguably a country which suffers from the abuse of blasphemy laws and sub cultures which exploit them and has lead to horrific incidents which are far too well known, is a country whose Muslims claim to follow the school of Abu Hanifa i.e. the Hanafi madhab

[xxxi] Page 121, al-Ayni

[xxxii] Page 537 volume 31, al-Tawdih li-Shar’h al-Jami al-Sahih, published by Wizarat ul-Awqaf Qatar 2008. A commentary on Imam al-Bukhari’s collection of Hadith authored by the famous Hadith and Fiqh specialist Siraj ul-Din Abu Hafs Umar bin Ali bin Ahmad al-Ansari. Died 1402

[xxxiii] Sufyan al-Thawri was a major scholar from the second generation of Muslims and was considered a Tabi’i i.e. a scholar who had met companions of the Prophet. He had his own school of thought and madhab, and a major scholar of Hadith also. See al-Imam Sufyan al-Thawri wa ara’uhu fiqhiya muqarana bil-madhahib al-ukhra, published by Obeikan, Riyadh – Saudi Arabia, 2007. al-Thawri died 778

[xxxiv] Pages 206-207, al-Subki. al-Subki himself argues though that Shafi has more of a right to be followed than Qadi Abu Tayyib, whose position he narrates but does not advocate following – page 208

[xxxv] Page 190. The editor also cites Ibn Taymiyya’s work al-Sarim al-Maslul volume 2 page 23 on the same page footnote 4. al-Hulwani is Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Uthman bin al-Buraq al-Hulwani. Died 1111.

[xxxvi] Page 316, volume 2, Fat’h ul-Wahhab bi-Shar’h minhaj ul-Tullaab al-Ansari, Shaykh Zakariya, was a major scholar of the later school in the Shafi school whose works are widely studied today. Died 1520

[xxxvii] Both the above reference and the consensus of Sunni schools can be found in the Hanbali author’s Kashf ul-Litham Shar’h Umdat ul-Ahkam, volume 7, pages 198- 207, a commentary on the most authentic Hadith found in the collections of Bukhari and Muslim, when discussing the meaning of the Hadith: “traitors will be known on the day of judgement by carrying the flag of treachery”. Published by Dar al-Nawadir in Syria – Lebanon – Kuwait. Imam Shams al-Din Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Salim al-Safarini. Died 1774

[xxxviii] For an elaborate but brief explanation of this see Bombing Without Moonlight – The Origins of Suicidal Terrorism, Published by Amal Press, Bristol – London, 2008. Murad, Abdal Hakim.

[xxxix] Page 169, volume 2, Shar’h ul-Ilmam bi-ahadith ul-Ahkam, published by Dar al-Nawadir, Beirut – Lebanon – Kuwait, 2010. Imam Ibn Daqiq al-Eid, Taqi ul-Din Muhammad bun Ali bin Wahb al-Qushayri al-Misri. Died 1302

The post Blasphemy, based upon Islamic theology or more precisely Islamic religious ethics or jurisprudence, Shariah appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Opinions

Tommy Robinson to tour Australia with the leader of group FBI deems extremist

The founder and ex-leader of the English Defence League Tommy Robinson will join the leader of a far-right group the FBI now deems an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism” in a speaking tour of Australia next month.

The report, from the Washington state sheriff’s office, became public after it analysed the firing of a deputy due to her links to the female offshoot of the Proud Boys – a movement which was launched in 2016 by Gavin McInnes (the co-founder of Vice Media), which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designates as a hate group.

In a warning to local law enforcement agencies, the FBI has said: “Proud Boys members have contributed to the recent escalation of violence at political rallies held on college campuses, and in cities like Charlottesville, Virginia, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington.”

The Proud Boys and its leadership are noted for their overt misogyny, glorification of violence, Islamophobia, and transphobia. Members of the group attacked individuals they believed to be anti-fascists and were not arrested on October 13, despite the violence and homophobic chants. Arrests came later, as their violence made headlines across the globe. The NYPD had arrested and charged several members of the group in an article published by CBS News on October 22.

McInnes generated controversy and outrage last year after a video titled ’Ten Things I Hate About Jews’ went viral. Rebel Media, the far-right Canadian media outlet, then retitled it ‘Ten Things I Hate About Israel’ after accusations of antisemitism.

This latest development may pressure the Australian government further, as a petition calling for Tommy Robinson to have his visa application denied, has gained over 50,000 signatures.

A week ago, it emerged that Tommy Robinson had not been granted a visa in time to meet with Republican members of Congress in Washington, following an invite from the controversial president of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, which has funded Robinson’s legal defence. Mr Pipes met with Robinson in his hometown of Luton last year.

Nor is this the first time that Robinson has sought to forge links with the ‘Islamophobia industry’ in the United States.

Shayne Neumann, Labor’s immigration spokesman, has written to the federal government to deny McInnes a visa.

Dr Dvir Abramovich, Chairman of Australia’s Anti-Defamation Commission, called on Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton to deny Robinson a visa, saying his “race-baiting promotes religious bigotry”.

PayPal has recently cancelled the accounts of McInnes and Robinson, and several anti-fascist groups in the United States.

Fans of Mr Robinson and Mr McInnes, however, can still spend $995 on private dinner tickets in several major Australian cities.

Photos of Mr McInnes have appeared on the personal Instagram profile of Tommy Robinson seven times – including photos of the pair drinking, eating breakfast, and attending a Luton FC match together.


Gavin McInnes Tommy Robinson Drinking


McInnes interviewed Robinson on CRTV, a conservative media outlet in October. He appeared alongside the leader of Ukip, Gerard Batten, Sargon of Akkad, Anne Marie Waters, leader of the far-right For Britain party, in protest at Tommy Robinson’s permanent ban from Twitter in May.

The Guardian newspaper has now revealed that the FBI had classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group in a meeting on August 2.

The post Tommy Robinson to tour Australia with the leader of group FBI deems extremist appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: Australia, Gavin McInnes, News, Proud Boys, Tommy Robinson, United States

Ongoing Situation in the Middle East and Gaza is No Excuse for Antisemitism

We know from the work of the Community Security Trust, that when there are times of conflict in the Middle East and in Gaza, that antisemitic discourse and incidents increase. Time and time again, this has been demonstrated to be the case.

We are aware that there has been a significant upsurge in hostilities in the region and with Palestinians and Israelis affected. Whilst we have no control over what happens in the Middle East, so we acknowledge that British Jews have no control or influence over the Middle East. They are simply bystanders who believe that they should be able to live without fear within our country and this is a right that everyone should enjoy.

We ask that we all remain vigilant against antisemitic and any forms of hate at this time. We owe our Jewish brothers and sisters the dignity and care at this time to ensure that they feel safe and secure as citizens and as people who form a core part of our local communities.

The post Ongoing Situation in the Middle East and Gaza is No Excuse for Antisemitism appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: Gaza, Hate Crimes, Jewish communities, Middle East, Opinions

We Urge the Home Secretary to Provide Refuge and Sanctuary to Asia Bibi in the UK

We have today, signed a letter with numerous organisations and individuals, asking the Home Secretary to provide the option of sanctuary and refuge to Asia Bibi, who was released after 8 years of false imprisonment in Pakistan.

Faith Matters has consistently highlighted the extremism of groups like Tehreek-e-Labaik and its leader, Khadim Hussain Rizvi, who has inflamed tensions in Pakistan by rousing extremist mobs to attack the Government. Faith Matters also managed to work with Twitter to close down all of Rizvi’s Twitter accounts. Rizvi, on the other hand, has consistently tried to terrorise the Government of Pakistan into doing his bidding by pushing them to crack down on minorities such as Ahmadi Muslims.

We believe that the United Kingdom has had a history of providing shelter to those who are persecuted, from Kinder Transport children through to East African Asians and to those persecuted in developing countries throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Asia Bibi’s case shows how fragile and insecure Islamist extremists are when they are frightened of a woman who is of another faith. They have taken away her freedom for 8 years and then chased her away from her own country. However, it is not Asia Bibi who has been weakened. She has shown how spiritually defunct and imbecilic Islamist extremists are.

Asia Bibi should be offered sanctuary in the United Kingdom. Her presence in the United Kingdom will send out the right message that people who are persecuted because of their faith are welcome in our country. It will also send out a strong message to Islamist extremists in the UK. If you cannot respect the rights and presence of Asia Bibi, maybe it is you who should not be in this country.


The post We Urge the Home Secretary to Provide Refuge and Sanctuary to Asia Bibi in the UK appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Asia Bibi, Home Secretary, Islamist extremists, Khadim Hussain Rizvi, Opinions