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Lambeth Palace said in a statement yesterday that the award had been withdrawn.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 loses it at Archbishop of Canterbury after row over award to Muslim cleric
Nigel Farage has launched a fierce attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury after an award to a Pakistani Muslim cleric was withdrawn when historic comments about Osama bin Laden came to light.
The Reform UK leader criticised Dame Sarah Mullally after Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi was presented with the Hubert Walter Award for Reconciliation and Interfaith Cooperation at Lambeth Palace.
The award was given for Ashrafi’s work promoting interfaith harmony and supporting religious minorities in Pakistan.
But days later, Lambeth Palace announced that the honour had been withdrawn after previous comments made by Ashrafi emerged.
The controversy has raised questions about the checks carried out before religious figures are given high-profile honours and about the difficult balance between interfaith engagement and scrutiny of controversial past statements.
Farage launches attack
Farage reacted angrily to the controversy during his GB News programme.
He questioned why the Archbishop had given an award to a man whose previous remarks about bin Laden had subsequently emerged.
“Every time we get a new Archbishop I think it must get better, it doesn’t, it gets worse,” Farage said.
He also questioned why Ashrafi had been honoured when his 2007 remarks had referred positively to bin Laden.
The comments immediately turned the dispute from a question about one controversial award into a broader political argument about the Church of England, religious leadership and Britain’s approach to interfaith relations.
Farage’s comments were political criticism rather than an official assessment of the award process.
What the award was actually for
The Hubert Walter Award was presented to Ashrafi during the 2026 Lambeth Awards ceremony.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s office said the honour recognised his longstanding support for religious minorities in Pakistan, particularly the Christian community.
The official description of the award referred to Ashrafi’s work as an ambassador for interfaith harmony in Pakistan.
The ceremony took place at Lambeth Palace on September 11, exactly 25 years after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
That timing became an important part of the controversy.
Critics argued that the date made the discovery of Ashrafi’s historic comments particularly uncomfortable.
The National Secular Society criticised the decision and questioned how the award had been approved.
The comments that caused the row
The controversy centres on remarks Ashrafi made in 2007 following the decision to give Salman Rushdie a knighthood.
Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, had been the subject of intense controversy among some Muslim communities since the publication of the novel.
In comments made at the time, Ashrafi said he would give bin Laden the title “Saifullah”, meaning “Sword of God”.
He referred to bin Laden as a Muslim warrior and contrasted the proposed honour with the British knighthood given to Rushdie.
The comments did not mean that such an honour was actually bestowed on bin Laden.
But the language used by Ashrafi became the central reason for the backlash after the remarks resurfaced.
ITV reported that Ashrafi later said he had been making a comparison intended to illustrate the offence felt by some Muslims over Rushdie receiving a British honour.
Lambeth Palace reverses the decision
The Archbishop’s office moved quickly once the old remarks became public.
On September 17, Lambeth Palace confirmed that the award had been withdrawn.
Its statement said the honour had originally been given because of Ashrafi’s longstanding support for religious minorities in Pakistan, particularly Christians.
However, it added that previous comments had come to light which led Lambeth Palace to reconsider the decision.
“We can now confirm today that the award has been withdrawn,” the statement said.
The Palace also said it remained committed to interfaith dialogue.
That point is important because the withdrawal of the award was not presented as a rejection of engagement between Christian and Muslim communities.
Instead, Lambeth Palace said dialogue across deeply held differences remained an important principle.
Ashrafi’s defence
Ashrafi’s representatives rejected the suggestion that the 2007 remarks amounted to support for terrorism.
A spokesman said the comments had been reported without their proper context.
The spokesman argued that Ashrafi had been using bin Laden as part of an analogy about the anger felt by Muslims over Rushdie’s knighthood.
He also pointed to Ashrafi’s wider record, saying his position against terrorism, violent extremism, suicide attacks and the killing of innocent people was “clear and unequivocal”.
That explanation provides important context to the controversy.
The disputed remarks are genuine and documented, but their meaning and significance are contested by Ashrafi’s representatives.
The Archbishop’s office nevertheless concluded that the comments were sufficiently serious to justify withdrawing the honour.
Why the timing became so controversial
The date of the ceremony intensified criticism.
Ashrafi received the award on September 11, the 25th anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.
The significance of the anniversary meant that any historical comments concerning bin Laden were likely to receive particular attention.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s office did not say that it had intended to honour Ashrafi in connection with the anniversary.
The award was formally about reconciliation and interfaith cooperation.
Nevertheless, the coincidence became a major focus of criticism.
A wider debate about interfaith engagement
The dispute raises a difficult question for religious organisations.
Interfaith work often requires dialogue with people from different religious traditions and political backgrounds.
That does not necessarily mean that every participant shares the same views.
But high-profile awards create a different level of scrutiny.
An award from the Archbishop of Canterbury can be interpreted as an institutional endorsement of an individual’s contribution and reputation.
That makes background checks and due diligence particularly important.
Critics of the original decision argue that Ashrafi’s 2007 comments should have been identified before the honour was presented.
Lambeth Palace’s decision to withdraw the award indicates that the institution itself accepted that the newly surfaced comments were incompatible with continuing to confer the honour.
The Church of England’s position
The controversy comes shortly after Sarah Mullally became Archbishop of Canterbury.
The 2026 Lambeth Awards were her first awards ceremony since taking office.
The Archbishop’s official announcement described the awards as recognition of contributions to the Church, the Anglican Communion and wider society.
The five categories included services to the Church of England, services to the Anglican Communion, reconciliation and interfaith cooperation, community service, and education and scholarship.
Mullally has therefore placed interfaith cooperation among the recognised areas of service.
That makes the Ashrafi controversy particularly significant for the institution.
The award was intended to recognise cooperation between communities.
Instead, the dispute has prompted questions about how far an organisation should go in examining the historical statements of people involved in interfaith work.
Farage’s broader political argument
For Farage, the incident fits into a much wider political debate about integration, religious leadership and the relationship between Islam and British institutions.
Reform UK has repeatedly argued that Britain needs tougher approaches to extremism and greater scrutiny of organisations and individuals involved in public life.
The Archbishop controversy provides Farage with another opportunity to question how established institutions make decisions about religious engagement.
His criticism was directed specifically at the Archbishop, but it also reflects a wider argument about whether institutions sometimes prioritise dialogue over scrutiny.
That is a political interpretation rather than an established conclusion about the Church of England’s wider approach.
The importance of distinguishing criticism from fact
The controversy also demonstrates why the precise wording of claims matters.
It is accurate to say that Ashrafi made controversial remarks about bin Laden in 2007.
It is accurate that he was subsequently given a Lambeth Award.
It is accurate that Lambeth Palace withdrew the award after the remarks came to light.
It is also accurate that Ashrafi’s representatives said the remarks were being taken out of context and denied that they represented an endorsement of bin Laden.
What remains a matter of interpretation is precisely what motivated the original decision, how thoroughly the background checks were conducted and how the public should assess Ashrafi’s 2007 comments in light of his later statements and activities.
Those questions cannot be answered simply by repeating one side’s political interpretation.
Why the withdrawal matters
The withdrawal is significant because institutional awards carry reputational weight.
Once an award has been presented, reversing the decision is unusual and inevitably attracts attention.
Lambeth Palace’s explanation suggests that the decision was not based on opposition to interfaith dialogue itself.
Instead, the issue was the discovery of historical comments that the Palace considered sufficiently serious to reconsider the honour.
That distinction may be important for future awards.
Religious organisations can continue to support dialogue while simultaneously applying stricter scrutiny to the public record of potential recipients.
Farage and the Archbishop now occupy opposing sides of the argument
Farage has used the affair to challenge the Archbishop’s judgement over the original award.
Mullally’s office has effectively acknowledged that the decision required correction by withdrawing the honour.
Ashrafi’s representatives, meanwhile, have defended his wider record and insisted that the controversial remarks should be understood in their historical context.
The three positions are therefore clearly different.
Farage sees the episode as evidence of a serious institutional failure.
Lambeth Palace has accepted that the award should be withdrawn while maintaining its commitment to interfaith cooperation.
Ashrafi’s representatives argue that his historic comments have been misinterpreted and point to his stated opposition to terrorism and violent extremism.
What happens next?
The immediate controversy has been resolved in one respect: Ashrafi no longer holds the Hubert Walter Award.
The larger questions remain.
How should religious institutions assess potential recipients?
How much weight should be given to historical comments?
Can someone who has made deeply controversial remarks later demonstrate a sustained record of interfaith cooperation?
And how should institutions distinguish between genuine advocacy for reconciliation and statements made in the context of political or religious controversy?
Those questions extend well beyond this individual case.
For Farage, however, the incident has provided another opportunity to attack an established institution and challenge the way it approaches controversial religious figures.
For Lambeth Palace, the withdrawal represents an attempt to correct a decision while preserving its commitment to interfaith engagement.
And for Ashrafi, the dispute remains tied to his explanation that his 2007 remarks were part of an argument about the reaction to Salman Rushdie’s knighthood rather than an endorsement of terrorism.
The facts surrounding the controversy are now clear: an award was presented, historic remarks came to light, Lambeth Palace reconsidered the decision and the award was withdrawn.
The political argument over what that episode says about Britain’s religious institutions is likely to continue.
For now, Farage’s furious intervention has ensured that a disputed award at Lambeth Palace has become a much wider national debate about scrutiny, religious dialogue and the standards expected from Britain’s most prominent institutions.