An invitation to Adnan Rashid to *come clean* about his past public support for a convicted terrorist in 2003

Just 4 weeks ago when we met at Speakers’ Corner Adnan gave me a big friendly hug. I had defended him publicly on social media and face to face against what I saw as the unjust maligning of his good character by avowed enemies of Islam.

Relentlessly accused by the likes of Raj and atheist Steve of being a covert extremist and terrorist sympathiser, I was outraged. Adnan is neither of course.

Of this I am absolutely certain.

But, about 2 weeks ago I came across a YouTube clip that made me sick to my stomach. Filmed in 2003 it shows (about to be) convicted terrorist Abdullah el-Faisal along with Adnan Rashid who is cheerleading el-Faisal – exhorting Muslims to support him in every way they can. El-Faisal was on trial at the Old Bailey when Adnan shared a platform with him.

This is the video

According to Wiki,

‘After a four-week trial at the Old Bailey, el-Faisal was found guilty by a jury of six men and six women on 24 February 2003 of: (a) three charges of soliciting the murder of Jews, Americans, Hindus, and Christians; and (b) two charges of using threatening words to stir up racial hatred, in tapes of speeches to his followers. He was the first Muslim cleric to be tried in the UK.’

It is true that we can’t see Adnan himself in the video. But his distinctive voice is unmistakable. The way he speaks, his choice of words, the modulation of his voice is clear: it is Adnan Rashid.

Every Muslim I have spoken to privately agrees. They all know him personally. No one has disagreed.

Adnan is protecting his image and reputation at all costs.  But if he had just admitted it was him in 2003 and had learnt the error of his ways (he was just 25 years old) and converted to a fine upstanding family man, he would continue to have my total respect and support.

But lying, denying, deviating and claiming others are paid agents to discredit him is just plain stupid.

If Adnan truly felt he was being slandered re his past support for the terrorist Abdullah el-Faisal, he would surely have sued. But he does not. He knows it will be proven it was him. So Adnan goes through this charade each week.

For an intelligent guy he is not acting in an intelligent way in this.

So Adnan must come clean about his public support for Abdullah el-Faisal in 2003.


And let us all move on..


see my two further comments below



Categories: Extremism, Paul Williams, Speakers' Corner

20 replies

  1. Here is a much longer film of Adnan Rashid supporting Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal in 2003. Adnan denies it was him.


    • This was on the youtube channel “AOC – Answering Objections to Christianity” It was taken down. AOC uploaded it to bitchute. And share it on youtube every time Adnan Rashid goes around accusing Christian of terrorist. That how first_last find it and uploaded it. Uncle Jamal video with ISIS supporter was also taken down. Muslims are flagging those videos. No doubt Muslims are trying to hide his link with sheik Faisal.


  2. From the Wiki article about Abdullah el-Faisal:

    Taped lectures

    In tapes of lectures he had given, he exhorted Muslim women to buy toy guns for their children, to train them for jihad.[2] El-Faisal tried to recruit British schoolboys for Jihad training camps, promising them “seventy-two virgins in paradise” if they died fighting a holy war. El-Faisal said “Those who want to go to Jannah [paradise], it’s easy, just kill a Kaffar [unbeliever] … by killing that Kaffar you have purchased your ticket to paradise.”[2] He suggested killing non-Muslims like “cockroaches.”[36]

    On one tape, titled “Jihad”, he said: “Our methodology is the bullet, not the ballot.”[2] In a tape called “Rules of Jihad”, thought to have been made before the 9/11 attacks, he said: “You have to learn how to shoot. You have to learn how to fly planes, drive tanks, and you have to learn how to load your guns and to use missiles. You are only allowed to use nuclear weapons in that country which is 100% unbelievers.” He encouraged the use of “anything, even chemical weapons,” to “exterminate non-believers.”[2] A picture of the burning World Trade Center was on the cover of one recording.[37]

    He lectured: “You can go to India, and if you see a Hindu walking down the road you are allowed to kill him and take his money, is that clear, because there is no peace treaty between us.”[2] He also suggested that power plants could use the dead bodies of Hindus as fuel.[38] “Jews,” el-Faisal said, “should be killed … as by Hitler.” He said: “People with British passports, if you fly into Israel, it is easy. Fly into Israel and do whatever you can. If you die, you are up in paradise. How do you fight a Jew? You kill a Jew. In the case of Hindus, by bombing their businesses.”[39]

    During the trial, he denied he had intended to incite people to violence. He also testified that he had held Osama bin Laden in “great respect,” but that bin Laden had “lost the path” since 11 September.[40]


  3. I find Adnan’s position intersting.

    As he could quite easily say that it was him and that it was a mistake due to youth. No major issues.

    But Adnan is adamant that it wasnt him which is a much more difficult position at first instance. But why would he state it if it wasnt the case? And it is plausible with the audio technology available nowadays.

    Thus, the onus is to prove the claim against Adnan without doubt which it hasn’t been based that one clip. Moveover, Adnan has denied it. His probity is not in question as of yet. Until that time we need to be cautious.

    @Paul why are you so convinced? Do you have any additional evidence?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Audios can be manipulated as you are aware. Knowing someone isnt evidence – so no real evidence then. You need genuine independent evidence. What are shariah rules in such cases? What is the evidence burden?


  5. Perhaps the CIA with its amazing technology may have created a fake video.

    Perhaps you are an agent sent by a foreign power to discredit anyone who doubts Adnan.


    Knowing someone IS evidence in the sense that I can recognise their distinctive voice, the way they speak, their choice of words, the modulation of the voice etc. It’s clear: it is Adnan Rashid


    • Ok whatever convinces you. Was trying to get you ruminate a bit. Lastly, I’d consult scholars on the conditions as Shariah rules are stricter than your personal convictions. Your senses can be misled.


      • I appreciate your loyalty to Adnan.

        However, I have yet to meet a Muslim who knows Adnan that believes it is not him.

        It’s not necessary to consult scholars on this matter where this is no reasonable doubt as to the identity of the speaker.


  6. Btw I have no loyalty to Adnan. I actually think all of Hyde park contributors are egoistic misfits (Hijab, Ali, YOU, etc) – specially, Adnan. I wouldnt be surprised if it was Adnan and he is lying.

    But my concern is about the Shariah conditions for evidence required to make accusations. As you dont care about that then good day to you sir.


  7. You can ask shamsi tell me. Also ask about evidence question too! See if he agrees with your position!

    Liked by 1 person

    • you ask him dear.

      It’s your issue not mine.


      • What I believe Zara is saying and correct me if I am wrong is that everything goes back to the deen. I personally think it very much sounds like him, the voice, the choice of words, someone calling out the name Adnan so on. However does this constitute as evidence in the deen?

        Extract from Troid

        Knowledge Preceds Statement and Action.
        Knowledge before statement and action is a firmly established principle in the dīn of Allāh and we see the scholars reiterate it over and over again using evidences from the Book of Allālh and the Sunnah of the Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam).
        The statement Imām al-Bukhāri is a benefit extract from the statement of Allāh:
        فَٱعۡلَمۡ أَنَّهُ ۥ لَآ إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ وَٱسۡتَغۡفِرۡ لِذَنۢبِكَ
        So know (O Muḥammad) that Lā ilāha illā-allāh (none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh) and ask forgiveness.
        [Sūrah Muḥammad, 47: 19]

        Allāh began with knowledge first, and then ordered that after the attainment of this knowledge the seeking of forgiveness comes.
        Istighfār here is the point of the action and the statement, so knowledge comes first before seeking forgiveness, and this is because one must must have knowledge of their Lord.

        He has been asked, he denies it, so leave the matter between him and Allaah. My advice to brother Paul is to withdraw the accusation, as these matters in the deen are not small issues, accusations are serious.


Leave a Reply to Paul Williams Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: