Islam and Wales

The below article is a draft. There is a lot of research not mentioned in this article, and some issues that need further examination. I publish it to provide an online source for the history of Islam in Wales, and furthermore, to solicit help, resources, pictures etc... from others in developing a reliable and extensive history of Islam in Wales.

It was written before I began my PhD in Islam in Wales and so does not include some of the more recent findings, which I hope, can be published in due course.

Islam’s relationship with Britain, and indeed Wales, is ancient, dynamic and deeply revealing. It is sometimes challenging, sometimes optimistic and always revealing.

The best place to begin the story is in the late eight century with King Offa of Mercia, who is perhaps most recognised for Offa’s Dyke (a partition built along the eastern border of Wales that still remains in parts to this day). However, King Offa is also known for minting one of the rarest and most curious coins of British history. A gold coin with the standard signage of ‘OFFA REX’, but with an additional Arabic script stamped upon it. The Arabic reads ‘There is but One Allah, the Only God, the True, and Muhammad is His Prophet’. The coin has attracted attention for this unique features, and many theories have put forward as to why a Christian King would mint a coin with the Islamic profession of faith. The most tenable theory is that the coin is an imitation of currency that was in circulation in the Abbasid lands. Yet most remarkably, it shows us that so early Wales already had contact and interaction with Islam.


The twelfth century saw Wales develop many of its most stunning and remarkable buildings and landmarks. Included in this development was Neath Abbey, a building once described as ‘the fairest abbey of all Wales’ by poet John Leland. What is surprising then perhaps is that ‘the fairest abbey of all Wales’ may in fact have been designed by a Muslim, A handful of records state that Lalys, captive from Palestine brought to Britain by Richard de Granville, was the architect of Neath Abbey. Despite Lalys’ unfortunate circumstances, and indeed the wider context of the crusades of the period, Neath Abbey symbolises the cultural exchange and communication that occurred between Muslims and Christians through trade and travel. This exchange of culture and technology can also be seen in the castles that adorn Wales’ borders; many adopted the design and architecture of castles in the Holy Land. I saw this remarkable shared history myself when visiting Syria. As I stood upon Qalaat el Hosn, one of the most important Crusader castles in Syria and looked at the green lush mountains that surrounded the castle, I was immediately reminded of Castell Caerffili. The link runs deeper even yet. Grahame Davies (author of The Dragon and the Crescent) considers the possiblility of whether the English military preoccupation with the crusades gave Wales the breathing space to establish and enjoy it’s two centuries of freedom. We can’t answer definitively, but we can say with confidence that Wales and Islam did not exist in isolation during the medieval era.Conversion to Islam was rare in British Isles prior to the twentieth century, but far from unheard of. We find the story of a Welshman ‘runagado’, an archaic term for conversion to Islam from 1671. Having been on the losing side of a naval battle between his own pirate ship and a Dutch man-o-war, he was hanged from the yard-arm of his ship. The incident is recorded in Charles I Domestic State Papers and gives us a tantalising glimpse into the life of a single Welshman of the time. Our hanged Welshman would not have been the only convert to Islam during this era - travel by sea was becoming more common and it would yet play an important part in the history of Wales and Islam.

Islam and Christianity indeed share many shared origins, being grouped as Abrahamic faiths with a shared faith in one God, in many of the same prophets and common ethical and eschatological framework. Indeed Islam very much reflects the tone of religion of Wales, a religious experience founded upon an egalitarian ethos with a strong sense of the importance of the individual in their expression of piety, something visible through Wales’ non-conformist history.

Despite Christianity and Islam being viewed as faiths in opposition, Muslims and Christians have often found themselves natural friends throughout history. This is most evident in Wales on the Isle of Anglesey.

Anglesey is home to a remote and ancient Church, that of Llanbadrig. It was said to have been founded by St. Patrick himself (Llanbadrig means the Church of St. Patrick). By the late nineteenth century, the Church had fallen into disrepair. It was Lord Henry Stanley, a wealthy aristocrat and convert to Islam (the first Muslim member of the House of Lords) who decided to fund its repair. His conversion was in no way in conflict with his admiration and love of Churches and the Christian faith itself, and so he provided the money for it to be restored. As a mark of respect to its benefactor, the Church incorporated stained glass windows that reflected Islamic artwork, which provides a beautiful integration of Islamic architecture and ancient Celtic architecture. The close relationship between Christians and Muslims in Wales has continued today through the innovative partnerships between the Muslim Council of Wales and various Christian bodies.

The relationship is not only between Islam and Christianity however. In January 2010, the Muslim Council of Wales and Cardiff University Islamic Society in association the Cardiff University Jewish Society hosted what was termed a ‘historic event’. In honour of Holocaust Memorial Day, Muslim and Jewish communities in Wales attended an event with photo-journalist Norman Gershman, who told the story of Muslims in Albania who protected Jews from the Nazi war machine during the dark days of the Second World War. The event may have been historic, but it was not the first time the Welsh Muslim and Jewish community came together to celebrate their shared heritage.

On the 6^th January 1908, over a century ago, a prominent British Muslim convert, Abdullah Quilliam, spoke at Cardiff University College alongside Dr Hirchowitz and Dr Zalkin (at that time, Professor of Hebrew studies). The topic Abdullah Quilliam spoke on was the close relationship between Muslims and Jews throughout history. It is encouraging to know that over 100 years, the religious communities of Wales still found common purpose.

The nineteenth century also saw a significant number of Muslims coming to Wales, particularly the docks of Cardiff and Barry. The Muslim community is perhaps the oldest non-Christian community in Wales. Yemenis and Somalis were made up the majority of sea merchants, many of whom stayed in Cardiff while waiting work. These communities slowly became part of the society until Cardiff became home.

Perhaps in recognition of this long established Muslim community, we can see a star and crescent sitting above a stone dragon on the front of City Hall in Cardiff. There are no notes left by the architect and designers on the purpose and intention of this emblem on the front of Cardiff’s most famous civic building, so we can only guess as to it’s intention for the time being.

Cardiff is also home to one of the earliest mosques in the UK (although certainly not the first, as has mistakenly been claimed). Peel Street Mosque was established sometime in the 1930s, originally just a converted house. The mosque however was bombed during the Blitz in 1941. A new mosque was rebuilt and finally opened in 1947. Records show a number of the individuals involved with Peel Street Mosque were also part of the British war effort during World War 2. Pictured below is Kaid Shef, who helped in the mosque after being injured in the Normandy campaign.

One individual of importance during this era was Abdul-Hamid, who for some time was based in Rhyl in North Wales. He was killed during a bombing in 1944, however records show he was a well known and recognised individual, and an obituary in the times written by Lord Winterton states that Abdul-Hamid was an ‘enthusiastic believer in friendship between Great Britain and… Islamic peoples’.

The sacrifice of Welsh Muslims in World War 2 is one particular aspect I hope to discover more about during the course of my PhD. If one were to visit Barry Memorial Hall today and spend some time reading the names of those killed during both World War 1 and World War 2, they would find dozens of Muslim names. The stories of these men is still unknown.

Cardiff is home now to about a dozen mosques, ranging from purpose built ones such as the South Wales Islamic Centre in Butedown, to converted homes such as al-Manar in Cathays. It’s home to one of the largest and most active student Islamic Societies in the UK, a scouts group, several Islamic charities and much more. Swansea likewise is currently raising money to renovate and old church, and has a great history of fantastic community relations. In North Wales, the Muslim community in Wrexham has just purchased a building for the site of its first mosque (after decades spent praying in a university prayer room).

The community is also marked by a growing level of engagement and interaction with the wider public sphere, creating Muslim Welsh identity that speaks strongly of civic contribution, global citizenship and ethical integrity and confident faith in God.

But that there is still much more to know about the history of Muslims in Wales. Most of this information I fear is not within history books or textual records, but within the people of Wales. Stories passed on, life experiences and local knowledge. Rediscovering this knowledge is a challenge, but one I look forward to.

Many thanks to the below: -
The Centre for the Study of Islam in the UK
Mwslimiaid dros y Blaid
Members of the WW2 Talk Forum
The British Museum for the picture of King Offa's Coin
The Imperial War Museum
Wikipedia for their picture of Llanbadrig Church

A brief word on the Labour Leadership

Today it was announced that Ed Miliband is the new leader of the Labour Party.

Some have hailed this as a success for the left – a return to the socialist roots of the party and a leader that will address social injustice, help the poor, rebuild Britain and create a ‘progressive’ government.

By nature, I’m not a cynic, but I can’t share the optimism of others. In 1997, Tony Blair was elected with a strong mandate (400 MPs in the House of Parliament from the Labour Party!) – if social justice and Labour policies were ever to be enacted in this country – 1997 was the time. Yet Tony Blair’s legacy is not one to be proud of. The Iraq War still causes unimaginable suffering and even domestic policy didn’t solve long standing problems.

Likewise – Obama elected in the USA in 2008. ‘Change We Can Believe In’ apparently, yet the change was not so significant. Yes, the USA has not invaded any foreign countries yet, but that isn’t quite a measure of success. The rhetoric from Obama is the same as his predecessors, republican or otherwise.

Essentially it comes down to this – politicians don’t change the world. The less we look to politicians to make a difference, the better. They are public servants, fulfilling a role necessary for the maintenance of the state.

If we want a fairer society, we need fairer people. If we want ethical foreign policy, we need ethical politicians to begin with. No amount of government legislation will ever replace human goodwill.

Which for me, emphasises the role of faith leaders in the UK. They are able to cultivate individuals with social awareness and responsibility. After all, it was the Christian Church that taught Britain to read and write, it was the Christian community which led the way for social justice well before the political left through the Social Gospel movement.

Today, now that Britain is a country of many faiths, it falls upon all of them to address social injustice and poverty.

Edit (26/09/10): Just realised that the above might be taken as an argument for 'Big Society'. It really isn't. Government is part of society.

Another Islamophobic Non-story

If you happened to see Saturday's Daily Express headline, it ran: “MUSLIM PLOT TO KILL POPE”.

Millions would have seen the sensationalist headline. It goes without saying the story is a flunk, and the BBC have confirmed that the plot was nothing more than a few street cleaners joking in the work canteen.

It was barely a story from the beginning. There were no formal allegations, nothing about the motivation of the individuals or even their identity other than nationality.

Yet the Express, like a rabid dog, jumped at the story and made it headline. And not only that, they associated it with a whole faith - ‘Muslim plot’. I’m not sure if it’s better or worse that The Telegraph and others who went as far as to identify them as ‘Islamists’.

And despite the prominence of the news story on Saturday, there will be no front page headline saying “CORRECTION – NO MUSLIM PLOT TO KILL POPE” in the Sunday Express. The damage will be done and the public (at least those gullible enough to trust the Express) will consume another morsel of fake-news that adds to the existing Islamophobia.

Muslim communities in the UK (and indeed elsewhere) must engage with the media. First, to contest inflammatory and inaccurate reports. Second, to encourage more positive reporting of Muslim communities and finally, to begin producing media and news outlets that paint a more unprejudiced and unbiased picture.

The burden of responsibility also falls upon level headed journalists to ensure they at least do not add to the problem, and work to counter it - I've been told that the journalist who reports not for a pay cheque but due to a sincere belief in informing the public still exists (or perhaps they're all bloggers now).

And finally, there is much to be expected from our politicians; members of parliament as well as assembly members, to protect their communities against the growing tide of Islamophobia in the UK.

Rant over.

In Defence of Faith Schools

I recently watched a documentary on More4, Richard Dawkins’ ‘Faith School Menace?’ (not too sure what the question mark is supposed to imply).

I was quite disappointed. I was obviously aware he would against faith schools, Dawkins never gets to the heart of the issues. He is so keen to argue his point, that the subtlety and nuance of the debate is sacrificed in favour of polemic. On top of this, we are treated with the same old images of cameras focusing on woman in niqaabs, and ominous music playing anytime faith is mentioned (contrasted with the upbeat and hopeful music played when he is reminiscing about his childhood conversion to atheism).

Ultimately, I didn’t think much of the documentary. And I always find myself disappointed at how little Richard Dawkins understands faith. Contrast his works on religion with the depth of works by Karen Armstrong, Tim Winters, even an article in the New Statesmen (an openly secular publication), and you soon see that he just doesn’t quite get it.

Regardless, I wanted to write a few words in defence of faith schools. I will try to be brief, as tempting as it is to dissect the documentary and every point that it made.

Faith schools do add value.

Richard Dawkins claims that Dr Steve Gibbon’s research on faith schools and exam results ‘authoritatively’ establishes that faith schools do not give children a better education.

Dr Gibbon’s work is anything but authoritative. It establishes only that children from similar economic backgrounds achieve similar exam results regardless of whether they go to a faith school or not.

The obvious flaw is that a school’s success is not simply based upon exam results. Ofsted and Estyn look at many varied aspects of a school’s provision. Faith schools consistently score higher. Not only on exam results, which is only a single indicator, but a pupil’s behaviour, their interaction and engagement in classes, the structure and nature of the education. And there are many other indicators that even Ofsted inspections do not account for – for example, the child’s mental well-being, social integration, self-esteem, confidence and so on.

Also, as a final point, in the context of Muslim faith schools, which more often than not deal with children from working class and more impoverished backgrounds, faith schools provide a drastic and visible difference in the grades and add to the social mobility of the children who attend.

Faith schools do add value, and many different levels, to a child’s education.

Faiths schools do not restrict choice.

Dawkins took a large objection to children being taught about faith. Perhaps, not surprisingly, faith schools teach faith from a reverential position.

Of course, without any concession, a child’s freedom of conscience must be recognised and respected, even in a faith school.

The following Quranic verse was revealed in response to Muslim parents who, at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), were overzealous in getting their children to adopt Islam as their faith.

“Let there be no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error…” 2:256

The Quran asserts the right of children, and all humans, to adopt they faith they choose, if any.

This does not run counter to instructing and nurturing a child in a specific faith tradition. Dawkins and others who argue that by rearing a child in a certain faith you are somehow restricting choice in fact betrays their own lack of confidence in the human ability to choose. Sending your daughter to a Christian faith school is by no means a sure-fire way of ensuring she is a Christian in later life. Humans have a fantastic ability to make up their own minds and hearts.

The unfortunate example of the Muslim faith school with a science teacher who didn’t quite understand evolution doesn’t swing the argument either. And although she claimed all her 60 students came to the same conclusion on evolution and faith, I very much doubt it. I teach at a complementary Muslim education school, and at times we engage in discussion about these very topics. In a small class, I am always certain to get a whole spectrum of views – young minds that are grappling with the issues to reach their own conclusions. A more successful example of teaching science and faith can be read in this Comment is Free article.

Faith schools are socially cohesive.

Dawkins’ trip into Ireland was shocking. A casual observer, with no introduction to the Northern Ireland issue, would have presumed that the division and conflict was solely due to Protestant and Catholic division. There was no mention of the word Nationalists or Unionists, or the British rule, or the several hundred year history which led to today’s situation.

As I mentioned, Dawkins, in his zeal to prove a point, never quite deals with the issue. If this is done intentionally, it is malicious, if it is done unintentionally, he’s just plain stupid.

Dawkins used an oft-repeated argument – get kids of different backgrounds together, and world will be okay. This isn’t the case. There are numerous examples of state schools with massive social and racial divisions. Work done on the issue states that if children are to meet others and form positive views about the culture or group they are from, many factors need to be in place. The children need to be of the same economic background, similar language skills and educational level, they must be on an equal footing in terms of power and dominance (especially culturally) - without these factors, such interaction can sometimes confound prejudice rather them remove it.

I would argue that faith schools are in fact essential to a cohesive society.

No matter how good, no state school lacking religion can teach morality.

Faith schools’ RE lessons are not shady places, as Dawkins insinuates, in which children are taught to hate the other.

Rather, the values of faiths are conveyed in these lessons.

Teachings such as the whole of the Torah being ‘that which is hateful to you, do not do to another’ (Talmud), or Jesus (peace be upon him) saying ‘do to others, as you would have done to yourself’ (Gospel of Luke) and Muhammad (peace be upon him) teaching ‘love for mankind what you love for yourself’ (Bukhari).

By nurturing these values within children, their relationship with the rest of the world (not just humanity) becomes one of respect, love, and altruism. More of this is needed, not less.

Parents do have a right to choose the education of their children

Dawkins seems to prefer that the state has a superior say in how children are raised.

What particularly incenses me about Dawkins is that not only is he hypocritical, he doesn’t seem to realise it.

Is there a difference between telling a child ‘the world has a purpose, seek it out’, and telling a child ‘the world has no purpose, things just are’? In both cases, you are predisposing your child to a certain direction of thought. Science doesn’t engage with metaphysical purpose, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Parents are the primary source of education for children. If a parent feels that a child will flourish and grow more successfully in a school environment that compliments the morality and teachings at home – then a parent has that right. They are the primary agents responsible for the well-being of their children - not the state.

In closing, even as person of faith, I do recognise that there are some important discussions that need to take place around faith schools in Britain today. But Dawkins engages with none of them.

NB: Much of the above on faith schools is based on some academic work I did at university – so if anyone would like me to qualify the above with references and research, I am more than happy to do so.

Hidden Histories

Mosques in the UK have generally been pragmatic affairs. The communities that established them were often constrained by their resources and usually opted to establish mosques that met the immediate needs of their community.

The choice of location of a mosque was usually influended by three factors, geographic location, size and cost. The history of the buildings was not given much thought. That said, it's an interesting journey to look into this history, and often the discoveries it yeilds can hold important reminders for modern communities.

About a week ago, I spent a few hours in the Glamorgan Records Office, looking into the history of some local mosques in Cardiff. One mosque in particular attracted my attention as it is a mosque close to my own heart as well as many of the Muslim community in Cardiff - Dar-ul-Isra, on Wyeverne Road.

Dar-ul-Isra, meaning 'The House of the Night Journey', is a relatively new mosque, being established in the early 1990s. It was formerly a Parish Hall for St. Andrew's and St. Teilo's Church. Recently, it was renovated with the addition of two new floors - it's grand opening was only a few days ago (7th August 2010). I did hope to post what I found before it opened, but for various reasons this wasn't possible.

For a Muslim, worshipping in a mosque that was formerly a church or chapel adds to the sacredness of the location. A verse in the Quran states: -

"For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allah is mentioned much would surely have been pulled down. Verily, Allah will help those who helps Him. Truly, Allah is All-Strong, All-Mighty. " Surah 22, Verse 40

God mentions the sacredness of monastries, churches, synagogues and mosques together - they are all places of reverence and of holiness. There are numerous other verses and Prophetic sayings which attest to this fact also.

Thus the Muslim sees a mosque that was formerly a church or chapel as preserving the sacrednesss of the location. However, it must still be a difficult experience for a Christian, to see a church or chapel turned into a place of worship for another religion. I hope that Christians will see, as Muslims do, that mosques preserve the sacredness of the Church building (saving it from the fate of being turned into a bargain goods store, as was the case for one unfortunate church) and that this shared history can be a source of unity for the two communities.

Back to Dar-ul-Isra.

The original plans for the building can be seen below.

The plans state that the building was for a Parish Hall comissioned for the Rev G L Richardson MA of No. 7 Park Grove.

Parish Halls, as I understand them (and I could be very well wrong, as I haven't looked into this in much depth) were not so much places of worship, but places in which other community needs were met. The equivalent of a modern community hall.


The stamp mark dates the plans to 9th April 1910. Interestingly, the renovations to Dar-ul-Isra were completed in August 2010, marking pretty close to 100 years since the building was first constructed.

In 1915, further plans submitted to build a Scout's Hall behind the Parish Hall.


The Scout's Hall was comissioned for the 4th Cardiff Troop Boy Scouts. Today, the Scout's Hall is still called the Scout's Hall, and used as a Scout's Hall (this time, for the 1st Cathays al-Huda Scout's group, a Cardiff based Muslim Scout's group). The Scout's Hall was brought by the Muslim community several years after the mosque.

Few changes were made to the building there on in, and a picture from 1959 attests to this.

And even after the Parish Hall was brought by the Muslim community to serve as a mosque, only minor changes were made. The above picture, and that below, taken from 2008, are remarkably alike.
The biggest alternation to the building no doubt happened when Dar-ul-Isra was renovated in 2009-2010. Two new floors were added and several adjustments to the interior layout. The picture below is from its grand opening.

I would, ideally, love to look deeper into the history of Dar-ul-Isra, as well as other mosques in Cardiff which offer very similar stories.

For the time being, I want to end with the (summarised and paraphrased) sentiments of Tim Winters, who remarked at a lecture he delivered in Cardiff at how British Muslims, mosques and Islam often continued and preserved British tradition and history and how Muslims, ostensibly portrayed as 'the other', were more indigenious in Britain than anywhere else.

I should thanks to the Glamorgan Records Office (who asked me to thank them) and Aunty Hasnah Khalid who provided the photos of the renovated Dar-ul-Isra.

I would also request that if anyone has information on the history of the local mosques in Wales, to email me. Particulary old photographs which are very difficult to come by.

Reflections on Free Speech

I’ve been meaning to write this article for some time. At first, I had hoped to condense down several books and articles I had read on Freedom of Expression in Islam, but the more I read about the topic, the more I realised how little needed to be said.

Karl Barth once wrote ‘the best theology needs no advocates’, and often this is the case with Islam. Its teachings on free speech are simple, concise and imbued with spiritual meaning.

I also came to realise that when Freedom of Speech was discussed through the angle of fiqh, or legal jurisprudence, it became a very difficult place. The affirmative evidence for free speech is present in the Islamic sources, but shariah is a dynamic entity that fluxes according to circumstances. So scholars would find themselves specifying endless circumstances so as to articulate the nature of freedom of expression in that situation. It seemed unnecessary to go into such depth.

I found however, the best articulation was the articulation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and God himself, with little commentary. Primarily because it was imbued with purpose and meaning. As humankind moves towards secularism and atheism, things lose their meaning and purpose all too quickly. So, into this cacophony of debate about freedom of speech, I would like to add the voice of Islam, in a hope that it will create a polyphony out of discord.

The starting place is perhaps a brief overview of modern conceptions of freedom of speech. You'll often hear the phrase “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it” during discussions on free speech. It is quoting Voltaire. It's all too often said with a condescending and patronising tone. For Voltaire, it is the liberty of free speech that is worth dying for, and not the speech itself. If this is the case, then what purpose does free speech serve so as to require such sacrifice?

Modern debate however loses sight of this question, and instead seeks to establish practicalities. It becomes a question of relationships and compromise between the two bodies who influence restriction of free speech. The first being the state who may (and often do) limit speech through legislation and measures of compulsion. The second is the arguably more powerful force of society. Society itself employs various methods of self-regulation to censor and censure certain speech it deems unacceptable.

We have lost sight of what is important when it comes to free speech, and instead preoccupy ourselves with the mundane. Is this person’s speech acceptable? If not, then how should it be dealt with? Ignored perhaps? Or through legislation? Or through public condemnation? The debate goes to and fro, and has failed to provide shed any light on the way forward.

I feel, perhaps, one reason that discussion has failed to provide any solutions is that the wrong question has been asked. Rather than, 'what are the appropriate limits of freedom of speech and how should these limits be exerted?' I feel it is more prudent to ask, 'what is the purpose of freedom of speech and why must it be defended?'.

Surely, a clearer understanding of the purpose of a freedom will allow us to understand why such a freedom may be revoked (if ever).

I turn to a Prophetic teaching, a teaching that is deeply profound.

“The best jihad is to speak a word of truth in front of a tyrant
ruler”

Leaving aside for the moment the consequences of this teaching in understanding the ‘jihad’ of Islam, this hadith gives us a clear sense of what freedom of speech is about.

This freedom is no longer the decision of the state, but in fact a God-given right, one that in its truest and purest form is in search of truth and justice.

We find the Quranic expression of this right in the verse which commands mankind to ‘enjoin the good and forbid the evil' (see Surah 3, verse 104 of the Quran). Human society is mandated by God to ensure that it has individuals, who work towards enjoining, promoting and defending all that is good, and forbidding, working against and preventing all that is bad. As many scholars within Islam have noted, rights within Islam are often expressed through duties - and this duty no doubt requires the right of free speech, to critique, debate, discuss and so on. A right therefore is not simply an inconsequential aspect of a nation’s constitution, but given to serve a purpose. In this case, the purpose of speech is to promote good and prevent evil.

A third indication on the purpose of freedom of speech can be taken from a hadith oft quoted.

Whosoever of you sees a wrong action, let him change it with his hand; and if he
is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then
with his heart; and that is the weakest of faith.

The prevention of evil, injustice and wrong is thus one further purpose of freedom of speech. The hadith expresses a moral injunction to speak out against wrong action, preempting Edmund Burke's statement that "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent".

Freedom of speech is thus established in search of truth and justice, in the promotion of good, and the prevention of evil, injustice and wrongdoing.

No doubt this is not a carte blanche within the Islamic context. This right of speech is filtered through the noble character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Even when speaking to a tyrant ruler with a word of truth, compassion is a must. (We see this in the story of Moses and Pharoah, when Moses is commanded to 'speak gently to' Pharoah, in Surah 20, verse 44 of the Quran, regardless of his status as false god and tyrant on earth).

I think it’s about time that this purpose is brought into modern debates.

Only with a clear sense of the purpose of free speech, of why it is important and why it must be defended, can we move forward as a society.