Farhad Mazhar responds to death threat from Enayetullah Abbasi

Stating that he does not fear the death threats issued by what he described as anti-Islamic religious fascists and self-proclaimed killers, Farhad Mazhar said that Enayetullah Abbasi has publicly threatened to kill him and Abul Sarkar.

He said, “This is not the first time he has issued such threats to kill citizens. He has done it before as well. But he seems to assume that I would be terrified by it. Already his terrorist followers have been threatening to kill me on Facebook and over the telephone. I would like to place a few statements before the wise and the believers regarding this matter. We shall continue to write in more detail, InshaAllah, to protect Islam from terrorist and self-proclaimed killers, and to raise awareness about Islam.”

A video circulating on various social media platforms shows that two days ago, Enayetullah Abbasi labelled Farhad Mazhar a kafir and claimed that physical assault and killing him would be permissible.

In response, Farhad Mazhar posted his statement for the wise and the believers on Facebook on Thursday. The full text of his written statement is presented below:

In Islam, human life is such a precious trust that Allah Himself has placed its protection upon humans as a moral and legal duty. From the Qur'an’s perspective, taking a life or issuing a threat to take a life is not just a crime—it is comparable to declaring war against all human civilisation. From this moral and philosophical standpoint, the public death threats issued by Abbasi against Farhad Mazhar and Abul Sarkar are entirely unlawful, unjust and contrary to the fundamental principles of Shariah. The statements he delivered on 21 February in front of Baitul Mukarram and again a few days ago at a religious gathering were clearly deliberate attempts to provoke hatred and violence in the name of religion. In light of Islam’s long tradition of justice, reason and tolerance, this declaration is doubly dangerous. Because through this, Enayetullah Abbasi is attempting to portray Islam internationally as a religion of terrorists, and due to the failure to hold these self-proclaimed terrorists accountable, Bangladesh’s international image has already suffered grave damage. By giving shelter to terrorists, the interim advisory government has pushed Bangladesh towards great peril.

We do not believe that this emerging religious fascist terrorism has any connection with Islam. The Qur'an’s principle regarding the protection of life is firm and unequivocal. In Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32, Allah declares that killing one person unjustly is like killing all of humanity. The word “unjustly” is of critical importance in Islamic jurisprudence. Through this, the Qur'an dismisses personal revenge, emotion, disagreement or so-called defence of religion as valid grounds for killing. In Islam, the authority to execute punishment belongs to the state, the qazi, and the lawful judicial system. No scholar, speaker, group or mob has been granted this authority by Allah. Therefore, issuing death threats based on religious sentiment rejects the Qur'an’s court-centred conception of justice and wrongs Islam itself.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) faced many disagreements, criticisms, and even acts amounting to treason during his lifetime. Yet he never sentenced anyone to death for differences of opinion. When he confronted the serious demand to kill the chief hypocrite Abdullah ibn Ubayy, he said, “So that people do not say that Muhammad kills his companions.” This statement was not merely a political precaution; it was a principle of Islam — that disagreement or criticism, no matter how harsh, is never a capital offence. Religious reasoning and judgement are not captive to personal anger or extremism.

In the rich tradition of Islamic jurisprudence, 'takfir'— declaring someone a non-believer—has always been approached with extreme caution. None of the four Imams of the major schools of thought supported takfir over minor disagreements. Imam Nawawi said, “To mistakenly call a Muslim a kafir may endanger the person issuing the takfir himself.” Imam Abu Hanifa said, “It is better to err on the side of mercy than to err on the side of punishment.” This caution is the foundation of Islam’s moral, political and legal principles—because Shariah recognises that humans will easily misuse severe punitive powers. By declaring Farhad Mazhar or Abul Sarkar apostates or kafir and calling for their execution, Abbasi has clearly violated these jurisprudential principles. Though he claims to be an Islamic scholar, his profession is inciting terrorism and acts of violence in the name of Islam.

Historically, judicial processes in Islamic governance were always centralised or state-regulated. Whether under the Rashidun Caliphate or the Umayyad-Abbasid administrations, hudud punishments or death sentences were carried out only by the head of state or the qazi. Personal revenge, tribal conflict or religious emotion were never grounds for capital punishment. Those who took to killing in the name of religion—such as the Kharijites—were always confronted with strict opposition by Muslim political tradition. For if punitive religious authority is given to individuals, justice disappears and only ignorance and extremism remain.

Bangladesh’s laws and courts uphold this very moral and intellectual tradition of Muslims. Under Sections 506–507 of the Penal Code, issuing death threats is a criminal offence. The Anti-Terrorism Act and the Digital Security Act also clearly prohibit incitement to violence or hatred. These laws have indeed been misused in many cases in Bangladesh. But for maintaining mutual tolerance and civility among citizens, these laws must be placed under proper administrative regulation. There is much to learn from the precedents within Islamic history so that no one like Abbasi ever again dares to issue a death threat in the name of religion.

It is clear that Abbasi’s threat violates Islamic intellectual and moral consciousness, the Qur'an-Sunnah’s sense of justice, the classic jurisprudential opposition to takfir, the centralised justice system of Islamic governance, and the existing legal framework of Bangladesh — all at once. Islam’s spiritual, intellectual and discursive tradition—which confronts differing views through reasoning, explanation, intellect and dawah—is undermined by such extreme, violent and terrorist proclamations. Using religion as a weapon for political extremism ultimately causes severe damage to Islam itself; it strikes at the core Islamic principles of peace, justice and the sanctity of human life.

Islam seeks to build a society and civilisation where differences, debates and questions exist — but death threats do not. Islam has never legitimised violence in the name of silencing another. Therefore, Abbasi’s threat is part of an international and regional agenda implemented in the name of Islam but against Islam itself. We have fought against such fascist religious forces for a long time. These terrorist elements, nurtured during the fascist Awami League era, are why Abbasi today dares to publicly deny the July mass uprising. Enayetullah Abbasi seeks to prove Islam internationally as a terrorist religion in order to become the next commander of the so-called “war on terror” after Sheikh Hasina. This religious fascist force uses the name of religion to act against religion itself, and uses the name of social protection to destroy society.

From an Islamic standpoint, such terrorists have no moral, legal or spiritual legitimacy whatsoever.