25.09.2025 16:25
402
Ustad Mubashshir Ahmad's lawyer issues statement
Ustad Mubashshir Ahmad's lawyer, Abdullah Sadiq, issued a special statement on the trial of the Islamic scholar. In it, the lawyer shared some details, thoughts, and conclusions regarding the trials that took place. In the statement, the lawyer, who analyzed the trial of the Ustad, expressed hope that the court "will, first of all, rely on the law, his conscience, and inner conviction, take into account the circumstances identified in the case, evaluate the collected evidence one by one, and issue a legal, reasonable, and fair verdict."
"In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."
Hello!
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you, on behalf of Ustad Mubashshir Ahmad and on my behalf as their defender, for your prayers and support for their well-being, freedom, and, most importantly, justice during the investigation and trial of the criminal case against the domla, and for your voluntary and unselfish assistance to many of my fellow lawyers.
In my previous statement, I announced that the investigative actions conducted by the Investigation Department of the State Security Service of the Republic of Uzbekistan against the ulama Tursunov Alisher Ahmad oglu, known as Ustadz Mubashshir Ahmad, have been completed and the criminal case has been sent to court for consideration.
To date, after several court hearings held in the Uchtepa District Court of Tashkent, the judicial investigation has been completed, the parties have made their closing statements, and the judge has only the final say.
After that, the court must go into a separate deliberation room and deliver its verdict.
At this point, as the teacher's lawyer, I felt it necessary to share some details, thoughts, and conclusions regarding the court proceedings that took place.
The first court hearing in the case of Ustad Mubashshir Ahmad Doml began on August 19, 2025. It is noteworthy that all the court hearings were attended by a large number of family members, media, community activists, bloggers, and other concerned individuals, who were very active in their support. For this, I would like to express my special gratitude to them.
The court session was declared open by the presiding judge, and at this point the defense filed several motions to involve the media in the court session and to audio-record the proceedings.
Our petitions were granted, and it was determined that the trial would be held openly, with the media freely participating, with the only condition being that the court clerk would record the proceedings, and that media representatives would be allowed to take notes on paper.
At the preliminary hearing, the indictment was read out by the state prosecutor EN. According to the indictment, the teacher Mubashshir Ahmad was charged under Part 2 of Article 156, Part 3, Subparagraph “g” of Article 244-1, and Article 244-3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
After the indictment was read out by the state prosecutor, an organizational process was held to determine the procedure for conducting the trial. According to the opinion expressed by the prosecutor, the presiding judge BR determined the procedure for first questioning witnesses and then the defendant himself, examining documents, and proceeding to the parties' negotiations.
With this, the first court hearing was concluded and adjourned to call witnesses to the hearing.
The second court hearing was held on September 8, 2025. This hearing was important for us, because the main witnesses in this trial, namely the political scientists who conducted the examination, and the experts from the Committee on Religious Affairs, were to be questioned. We had a number of questions from them about what they based their conclusions on, and how scientifically sound their opinions were.
The court session began. First, the first witness, political scientist OM, was questioned. The expert tried to answer the questions posed by us from a political science perspective. In response to the questions posed to the expert, OM emphasized that the materials presented did not contain any calls or information imbued with the ideas of religious extremism, separatism, and fanaticism, calling for genocide or the forcible displacement of citizens, or aimed at instilling panic among the population, disrupting civil harmony, spreading slander, destabilizing fabrications, and opposing the established rules of conduct and public safety in society.
This means that the actions of teacher Mubashshir Ahmad domla do not constitute a crime as provided for in paragraph "g" of part 3 of Article 244-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
For information: Article 244-1, Part 3, Subparagraph "g" of the Criminal Code provides for the distribution of information and materials in any form imbued with the ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fanaticism, calling for genocide or the forced displacement of citizens, or aimed at instilling panic among the population, as well as the use of religion to violate civil harmony, spread slander, destabilizing fabrications, and commit other acts aimed at violating the established rules of conduct in society and public safety, as well as the distribution or display of attributes or symbols of religious extremist and terrorist organizations using the mass media or telecommunications networks, as well as the Internet, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of five to eight years.
A necessary element of the crime is the intentional commission of the crime, that is, the intended purpose of distributing materials imbued with the ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fanaticism is the dissemination of information and materials in any form that call for genocide or the forcible displacement of citizens or aimed at causing panic among the population, as well as the commission of other acts aimed at violating civil harmony, spreading slander, destabilizing fabrications, and violating the established rules of conduct in society and public safety. That is, if it is established on the basis of the expert opinion of the Committee for Religious Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan that the distributed material of religious content is imbued with the ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fanaticism, the intended purpose must be proven on the basis of the conclusion of a comprehensive linguistic and political science examination of the court.
In addition, the expert asked OM whether the phrases "damned Israel ... damned Zionists" cited in the video material entitled "What does the fatwa "Jihad against Israel" mean?", which the judge cited as the basis for Article 156, Part 2, of the indictment, were aimed at insulting national honor and dignity, insulting the feelings of citizens based on their religious beliefs or secularism, in order to incite hostility, intolerance or discord against groups of the population based on their national, racial, ethnic or religious affiliation.
The expert made a big mistake in answering this question by stating that these words were intended to insult the nation, namely the Jewish people, as the state of Israel. After his words, a series of questions and objections were raised by the defense.
In particular, Israel is a state. A state does not always express the will and desires of the people, the nation, that is, the policy of the state may differ from the views of the nation, the people that constitute it. This is also the case in Israel, that is, we have observed through the media that representatives of the Jewish nation expressed their views on stopping the war, not committing genocide against the civilian population in Gaza, and held demonstrations, but the state of Israel is acting in a completely opposite position, committing genocide against the civilian population in Gaza, and this was recently confirmed by the United Nations.
Furthermore, when it comes to Zionists, Zionism or Zionists are neither a nation or ethnic group, nor a race or religion.
Ustad Mubashshir Ahmad did not express any negative or insulting opinions about the Jewish nation, but rather condemned the genocidal policy of the State of Israel. The State of Israel is not considered a nation, race, ethnic or religious group, and opinions expressed about this state cannot be covered by the provisions of Article 156 of the Criminal Code.
For information: According to the classification of Part 2 of Article 156 of the Criminal Code, in order to be charged with a crime, a person must have the goal of inciting hostility, intolerance, or discord against groups of the population based on their national, racial, ethnic, or religious affiliation, that is, the act must be done with subjective intent.
From an objective perspective, there must be actions aimed at degrading national honor and dignity, insulting the feelings of citizens based on their religious beliefs or beliefs, as well as promoting the superiority or inferiority of citizens based on their national, racial, ethnic or religious affiliation, as well as directly or indirectly restricting the rights of citizens or directly or indirectly granting them advantages based on their national, racial, ethnic or religious affiliation.
However, the indictment issued by the preliminary investigation body and the indictment drawn up on its basis stated that "A. Tursunov, continuing his illegal actions, relied excessively on his religious knowledge and level, and, as a result of his actions related to the distribution of religious materials, incited national, racial, ethnic, and religious hatred among the multinational population residing in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan, violated civil harmony, and destabilized the situation."
According to Article 22 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, a socially dangerous act committed out of self-confidence or negligence is considered a crime committed out of carelessness, that is, the above-mentioned accusation indicates that A. Tursunov's actions lack proper intent, as stipulated in Article 244-1, Part 3, Subparagraph "g" and Article 156 of the Criminal Code.
It is clear that the necessary elements of the crime for the charge under Part 2, that is, the subjective aspect expressed in the correct intent, are absent.
With this, the questioning of the OM was completed, and the next expert, Sh.N., began to be questioned. The expert could not substantiate his conclusions in his own words and in his answers to the questions. Instead of answering the questions, the expert, at any moment, wanted to address the domla, Ustad Mubashshir Ahmed, with provocative questions. However, as a result of the objections raised by the defense and the reprimand given by the presiding judge, these questions were removed.
The second court session thus ended and the trial was adjourned. At the next court session, it was decided that the teacher Mubashshir Ahmad himself would be questioned and the documents in the criminal case would be examined.
The third court hearing began on September 15, 2025. Initially, our requests to call additional witnesses were rejected by the court.
Then, the interrogation of the preacher, Ustad Mubashshir Ahmad, began. In his testimony, the teacher recounted his entire life path, his achievements, and, focusing on each point of the accusation, each material separately, he gave a detailed explanation as a scholar, explaining very fully and beautifully the purpose of preparing and distributing these materials, the true essence reflected in them.
Regarding the attitude of Ustad Mubashshir Ahmad to the accusation, he stated that since he was working in the Republic of Turkey to distribute material of religious content, he did not consider it necessary to obtain a conclusion from the Committee for Religious Affairs of Uzbekistan, since the media activity was carried out abroad in terms of territoriality, he did not pay attention to the law, and for the same reason, no conclusion was obtained in the material related to the translation and explanation of the fatwa. At the same time, the intended purpose of its distribution was to prevent the fatwa from being misunderstood among the Muslim population, to prevent situations and consequences similar to the mass migration of people to Syria in the past, saying that jihad in Gaza was obligatory for us, to make it clear that the fatwa is not for citizens, but can only be issued if the state declares mobilization, that citizens themselves cannot enter the war zone, that the harmony of the Muslim people was aimed at, that the state They stated that they see security and national harmony as the ultimate goal of their activities.
Then, the documents available in the criminal case were reviewed, the court session was concluded, and the issue of whether or not to proceed to negotiations was considered.
Although the defense stated that it was ready to negotiate, the state prosecutor requested additional time to prepare, and the hearing was postponed.
September 18, 2025 was a very responsible and, in turn, important day. On this day, the court session continued and the parties' negotiating speeches were heard.
Initially, the state prosecutor expressed his opinion, and although the crimes stipulated in Article 244-1, Part 3, Subparagraph "g" and Article 156, Part 2 of the Criminal Code were not confirmed during the trial, based on expert testimony and the evidence examined, he requested that the teacher Mubashshir Ahmad be found guilty under these articles and Article 244-3, and that he be sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment and a fine of 150 times the base amount in accordance with Articles 60 and 61 of the Criminal Code.
To be honest, we were surprised by the fact that the state prosecutor was seeking punishment when the judge's innocence on two counts was apparent during the trial.
After that, the court gave the defense attorneys a closing argument and an opportunity to object to the state prosecutor's argument.
My colleagues and I expressed a full opinion on each circumstance, reason, and article of the accusation, proved the groundlessness of the accusation with evidence, and raised objections to the prosecutor's negotiating speech.
In particular, firstly, it was proven with all the necessary legal norms that the channels and other platforms belonging to the preacher Mubashshir Ahmad were reviewed and copied without the participation of an expert, that is, without ensuring the participation of an expert in the field of digital technologies, and that the evidence obtained in this way is considered inadmissible evidence according to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code and the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court.
Secondly, it was stated that the religious materials prepared by the teacher Mubashshir Ahmad were prepared in the Republic of Turkey, were not intended for the Republic of Uzbekistan, and were aimed at the Uzbek and Muslim people around the world, and that Article 12 of the Criminal Code states that “Citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as well as stateless persons permanently residing in Uzbekistan, shall be held liable under this Code, unless they have been punished by a court of that state for a crime committed in the territory of another state.” However, according to the legislation of the Republic of Turkey, the crimes provided for in Part 2 of Article 156, Part 3, Subparagraph “g” of Article 244-1, and Article 244-3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan are not considered socially dangerous acts and do not give rise to liability under the Criminal Code.
Thirdly, it was also emphasized in the negotiating speech that the accusations made by the teacher Mubashshir Ahmad under paragraph "g" of part 3 of article 244-1 of the Criminal Code were not confirmed based on the expert opinion of the Committee for Religious Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 19.05.2025, the comprehensive expert opinion of the AOKA dated 06.05.2025, the conclusion No. 140 of the comprehensive commission forensic-political-linguistic expertise dated 20.05.2025, the conclusion of the Republican Forensic Expertise Center named after "Kh. Sulaymanova" dated 22.04.2025, and the conclusion No. 151 of the Expert-Forensic Department of the State Security Service of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Fourth, it was clearly demonstrated that the materials distributed by the teacher did not intentionally attempt to cause hostility, intolerance, or discord against any nation, race, ethnic group, or religion, to belittle national honor and dignity, or to insult the feelings of citizens based on their religious beliefs or atheism. As for the opinions expressed about Israel or China, they were opinions about this country and its policies, and were not directed at any nation, race, ethnic group, or religion.
Fifth, it was argued that the distribution of religious materials due to negligence, that is, due to negligence or without any purpose, can only give rise to liability under Part 1 of Article 156 of the Criminal Code, but an important condition is that the person must have previously been held administratively liable under Article 184-3 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility, and that the teacher Mubashshir Ahmad had not previously committed this type of administrative offense and therefore could not be held criminally liable. That is, even if there was liability for the distribution, the teacher Mubashshir Ahmad could only be held administratively liable under Article 184-3 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility, but by this time the deadline for holding him administratively liable has also passed.
At the end of the discussion speech, the teacher under our protection, Mubashshir Ahmad, submitted a statement of remorse during the investigation process, in which he stated factual information that helped to expose the crime and gave a full confession to the accusation under Article 244-3 of the Criminal Code, taking into account that he has not previously been held criminally liable, is engaged in socially useful work, has not committed any intentional acts, has no personal enmity against representatives of other nations, races, or religions, has no intention of discriminating or insulting, and his actions do not contain the elements of the crime provided for in Article 156, Part 2 and Article 244-1, Part 3, subparagraph "g" of the Criminal Code, and his guilt has not been proven by objective evidence, the teacher is found not guilty and acquitted under these articles. In addition, a request was made to exempt him from punishment under Article 70 of the Criminal Code due to the fact that he no longer poses a social danger under Article 244-3.
Thus, the negotiating speech ended, and the court session was adjourned to hear the final words of the judge, Ustad Mubashshir Ahmad, and to issue a verdict.
We are confident that when the presiding judge, Mubashshir Ahmad, listens to the final words of the judge and enters the private consultation room, he will first rely on the law, his conscience, and inner conviction, take into account the circumstances identified in the case, and evaluate the collected evidence one by one, and issue a legal, reasonable, and fair verdict.
For information: According to data collected and analyzed from open Internet sources, although Article 244-1, Part 3, Item g of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment from 5 to 8 years as a punishment, it was found that in 2024-2025, more than 60% of court sentences imposed a non-custodial sentence. Under Article 156-2 of the Criminal Code, more than 81% of court sentences imposed a non-custodial sentence.