A former chair of the Conservative Muslim Forum says he was stunned by an article in the Times newspaper which used an anti-Muslim narrative to mislead readers about a court judgment concerning a child’s life or death medical treatment. Mohammed Amin described how the newspaper cherry picked information to make it appear as though the judgement had given undue credibility to a fatwa, and had been handed down recently, when neither were the case. The Times published the piece titled “High Court fatwa ruling raises alarm over sharia courts in UK” on the 19^th of December, last year.

‍

The article written by the paper’s investigations editor Dominic Kennedy concerned the tragic case of Tafida Raqeeb, who suffered a brain injury in 2019. A UK court was then forced to consider the withdrawal of treatment against the wishes of the parents and amongst the many documents submitted by the parents was a fatwa issued by the Islamic Council. In the judgment, Mr Justice Macdonald made it clear that the fatwa did not affect the outcome of the case beyond restating the principle of the “sanctity of life”, which is “a sanctity recognised by all the great religions and also by those who view life through a secular or scientific prism.”

‍

Yet the headline of the article and its subheading stating “A sharia council’s religious ruling influenced a judge’s decision in a life-or-death case” suggested a fatwa was the deciding factor. We asked Mohammed Amin to discuss his opinion on the case following his powerful appearance on Talk TV.

‍

Crucially, he had taken the time to look through the entire judgment instead of simply relying on The Times’ article.

‍

“When I saw the date of the judgement, I was stunned.

“The case was decided in 2019, but The Times was reporting it as if it was yesterday’s news.

“Nowhere in his 823-word article does the Times journalist Dominic Kennedy say when the case took place, presumably because that would not suit his objectives.

“The nearest he gets is to say that the fatwa was handed down in 2019, but that could be perfectly true even for a December 2024 High Court decision.”

‍

The case received broad coverage in 2019 when the original judgment was handed down. The decision to revisit the case five years later is not explained in the article.

‍

Mr Amin, who resigned from the Conservative Party the day that Boris Johnson became Party Leader in 2019, says that only by reviewing the judgment was it possible to determine how the case was decided but believes a reader relying solely on the newspaper report would be given an entirely wrong impression.

‍

“Most of the judgement’s 70 pages are devoted to summarising the very sad circumstances of the terribly ill child and the related legal issues.

“The judge uses the word “fatwa” only eight times, and it is clear that the fatwa played no part in his decision.”

‍

Amin suggests the goal of this Times article was to:

‍

“Imply that this judgement had just been handed down (rather than being given five years previously) and that the decision represented a major change in English law, which it was not.

“The article plays to a narrative that we often see. Namely that “Muslims are taking over” or “Muslims are about to impose Shariah law on Britain.”

‍

Amin said the article served to evidence a decline in British journalistic standards:

‍

“At one time, I would never have expected to see “The Times” publishing such material, just as I would never expect to see it today in any newspaper which takes accurate reporting seriously.”

The original The Times article can be found here (subscription required).