Nigel Farage erupted at the Archbishop of Canterbury in a row over her giving an award to a Muslim cleric who praised Osama bin Laden. Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi received the honour for reconciliation and interfaith cooperation last week on the anniversary of 9/11.
But Dame Sarah Mullally was forced to withdraw the award following a backlash after it emerged he praised the mastermind of the terror attacks in comments made in 2007. Speaking on his GB News show, the Reform UK leader said: “Every time we get a new Archbishop I think it must get better, it doesn’t, it gets worse.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (Image: GB NEWS)
Mr Farage added: “Why oh why is the Archbishop of Canterbury giving an award to a man who praised Osama bin Laden just a few years after the Twin Towers?”
Mr Ashrafi, the chairman of the Pakistan Ulema Council which is a group of Islamic scholars, received the award “for his outstanding work as an ambassador of interfaith harmony in Pakistan”.
But the honour sparked a backlash after past comments emerged that he made about Bin Laden.
Speaking after The Satanic Versus author Sir Salman Rushdie was knighted in 2007, Mr Ashrafi said: “We are pleased to award the title of Saifullah [sword of God] to Osama bin Laden after the British government’s decision to bestow the title of ‘Sir’ on blasphemer Rushdie. This is the highest title for a Muslim warrior.
“If a blasphemer can be given the title ‘Sir’ by the West despite the fact he’s hurt the feelings of Muslims, then a mujahid who has been fighting for Islam against the Russians, Americans and British must be given the lofty title of Islam, Saifullah.”
Lambeth Palace said in a statement yesterday that the award had been withdrawn.
It said: “The award was given for Imam Ashrafi’s longstanding support for religious minorities in Pakistan, particularly the Christian community – support that is valued by many Christians in Pakistan including its Anglican Church.
“It is a longstanding principle of interfaith dialogue and co-operation that we must engage with one another across deeply-held differences, and that remains the case.
“However, previous comments made by Imam Ashrafi have come to light that have led Lambeth Palace to reconsider this award and we can now confirm today that the award has been withdrawn. We have contacted Imam Ashrafi to make him aware of this decision.”
A spokesman for Mr Ashrafi and his council said his remarks had been taken “out of context”.
He said: “Our position against terrorism, extremism, suicide attacks and the killing of innocent people is clear and unequivocal. We have consistently worked for peace, moderation and interfaith harmony.”
Nigel Farage Challenges Archbishop of Canterbury Over Award to Muslim Cleric
A row over an award presented by the Archbishop of Canterbury to a Pakistani Muslim cleric has triggered a sharp political and religious debate in Britain, after comments made by the cleric about Osama bin Laden more than a decade ago came to light.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage strongly criticised Archbishop of Canterbury Dame Sarah Mullally after Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi was presented with the Hubert Walter Award for Reconciliation and Interfaith Cooperation. The honour was subsequently withdrawn by Lambeth Palace after scrutiny of Ashrafi’s previous remarks.
The controversy has raised questions about how religious organisations assess recipients of awards, the difficulties of interfaith engagement and the extent to which historical comments should affect recognition for later work.
It has also become another point of political disagreement over the relationship between Britain’s Christian institutions, Islam and questions of national identity.
Farage questions the decision
Farage expressed his anger during his GB News programme, questioning why Ashrafi had received an award connected with reconciliation and interfaith cooperation.
According to reports, Farage asked why the Archbishop of Canterbury had honoured a man who had previously praised Osama bin Laden. He also criticised what he described as a continuing deterioration in standards surrounding senior Church appointments.
His comments came after the discovery of statements made by Ashrafi in 2007, when he was associated with the Pakistan Ulema Council.
The remarks concerned bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda and the principal figure associated with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.
Farage’s intervention quickly became part of a wider debate over whether the award should ever have been presented.
The issue is particularly sensitive because the ceremony took place around the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Ashrafi received the award from Mullally at Lambeth Palace, the official London residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why Ashrafi received the award
Lambeth Palace said the award was not intended to recognise Ashrafi’s historical comments about bin Laden.
Instead, the Church said it was given because of his longstanding work supporting religious minorities in Pakistan, particularly the Christian community.
In its statement, Lambeth Palace said that this support was valued by many Christians in Pakistan, including members of the Anglican Church.
The Hubert Walter Award itself is associated with reconciliation and interfaith cooperation. Its stated purpose makes relationships between different religious communities central to the recognition.
That explains why Ashrafi was considered for the honour despite the political and religious sensitivities surrounding his background.
However, the discovery of his earlier comments created a direct conflict between the award’s stated purpose and remarks that had previously appeared to praise a figure responsible for one of the most consequential terrorist attacks in modern history.
The Archbishop’s office therefore reconsidered the decision.
The award was withdrawn
On September 17, Lambeth Palace confirmed that the award had been withdrawn.
The Archbishop’s office said that “previous comments” made by Ashrafi had come to light and that these had led it to reconsider the honour.
It also confirmed that Ashrafi had been contacted and informed of the decision.
The Church did not attempt to defend the historical remarks. Instead, it maintained that interfaith dialogue remains important while acknowledging that the newly highlighted comments required the award to be reconsidered.
This distinction is significant.
Lambeth Palace did not announce an end to its relationship with Muslim religious leaders or reject interfaith cooperation. Rather, it withdrew one particular award after information about the recipient’s past statements became known.
The episode therefore leaves two separate questions: whether the original vetting process was adequate, and whether withdrawing the award was an appropriate response once the information became public.
What did Ashrafi say?
The controversy centres on comments Ashrafi made in 2007 following the decision to knight author Salman Rushdie.
At the time, Ashrafi reportedly said that bin Laden should be given the title “Saifullah”, meaning “Sword of God”.
The remarks were presented as praise for bin Laden and referred to jihad against perceived enemies of Islam.
Those comments have been widely cited in reporting on the controversy. Sky News reported that Ashrafi had proposed the honorary title for bin Laden because of what he described at the time as his service to Muslims.
The historical context matters because the remarks were made several years after the September 11 attacks and during a period when bin Laden remained the world’s most prominent symbol of al-Qaeda’s violent jihadist movement.
Ashrafi’s representatives have disputed the interpretation being placed on his words.
A spokesman for Ashrafi and the Pakistan Ulema Council said the comments had been taken out of context and emphasised that their position against terrorism, extremism, suicide attacks and the killing of innocent people was clear.
That response is part of the public record surrounding the dispute and should be distinguished from the Archbishop’s decision to withdraw the award.
A difficult question for interfaith dialogue
The controversy highlights a broader challenge facing religious institutions.
Interfaith work frequently involves engaging with people whose political, religious or historical positions may differ substantially from those of the institution doing the engagement.
Lambeth Palace explicitly defended the principle of dialogue across deeply held differences. Its statement said that such engagement remains important.
But an award is different from simply holding discussions.
An award represents public recognition. It can be interpreted as an endorsement of a person’s contribution or character, even if the organisation intends to recognise only a specific part of their work.
That distinction helps explain why the discovery of Ashrafi’s comments created such a strong reaction.
Critics argued that the Church should have examined the cleric’s public record more thoroughly before presenting him with the award. Supporters of interfaith engagement, meanwhile, could argue that cooperation with religious leaders remains necessary even when relationships are complicated by historical disagreements.
The withdrawal of the award effectively acknowledges that both considerations have to be balanced.
Political reaction
Farage’s criticism has placed the controversy firmly within Britain’s political debate.
His intervention is consistent with his wider emphasis on national identity, immigration, religion and the role of Christianity in British public life.
However, the dispute should not be confused with a general argument against engagement between Christian and Muslim communities.
Indeed, the original award was specifically connected with cooperation between religious communities, and Lambeth Palace said Ashrafi had been recognised for his work supporting Christians in Pakistan.
The controversy instead concerns whether an individual recipient’s historical statements were sufficiently serious to make the award inappropriate.
Other political figures have also commented on the issue.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the decision to give the award as a “significant lapse”, according to reports. Critics of the Archbishop argued that the historical remarks should have been identified before the ceremony rather than afterwards.
Such criticism does not establish that the Archbishop personally supported Ashrafi’s historical statements. There is no indication in Lambeth Palace’s statement that Mullally endorsed them.
Instead, the Church’s response suggests that the award was based on Ashrafi’s more recent work and that the historical comments were not known or sufficiently considered when the decision was made.
The Archbishop’s position
Mullally became Archbishop of Canterbury in 2026 and was the first woman to hold the position.
The Ashrafi controversy therefore represents an early test of her leadership and of the Church’s approach to interfaith relations.
The decision to withdraw the award came relatively quickly after the historical remarks became the subject of public scrutiny.
That response may itself become part of the debate.
Some will focus on why the award was presented in the first place. Others will point to the withdrawal as evidence that the Church responded when relevant information emerged.
The facts allow both aspects to be considered without assuming that either one tells the entire story.
What happens next?
For Farage, the episode provides another opportunity to challenge Britain’s religious and political establishment.
For Lambeth Palace, it demonstrates the practical difficulty of maintaining interfaith relationships while ensuring that public honours meet appropriate standards.
For British Muslims and Christians involved in interfaith work, the controversy also illustrates how individual statements can affect wider efforts to build relationships between communities.
The Church has made clear that it does not intend to abandon interfaith dialogue. At the same time, the withdrawal demonstrates that dialogue and public recognition are not necessarily the same thing.
The central issue is therefore not whether religious communities should communicate with one another. It is how that communication should be conducted, who should receive public honours and what level of scrutiny should be applied before those honours are granted.
The controversy surrounding Ashrafi is likely to remain politically sensitive because it combines several subjects that generate strong reactions in Britain: terrorism, Islam, Christianity, immigration, national identity and the role of established institutions.
Farage’s angry response has ensured that the dispute receives considerable political attention. But the Archbishop’s decision has already changed the immediate situation: the award has been withdrawn, Ashrafi has been informed, and Lambeth Palace has reaffirmed its commitment to interfaith cooperation while acknowledging the significance of his historical comments.
The continuing debate will ultimately centre on whether the original decision represented a failure of due diligence, whether the subsequent withdrawal was sufficient, and how Britain’s religious institutions should balance reconciliation with careful scrutiny of those they publicly honour.