Will Mubashir Ahmad appeal the verdict? Lawyers and the public express discontent

On October 8, the Uchtepa District Criminal Court held the fifth hearing in the case of religious scholar Alisher Tursunov, known as Mubashir Ahmad. The hearing, which had been postponed three times and attracted significant public attention, concluded with a verdict sentencing him to two years and six months in prison. QALAMPIR.UZ attended the court session.

In his final statement, Mubashir Ahmad maintained his innocence, saying that he had acted impartially in his activities. He admitted only to publishing religious materials without obtaining permission from the relevant authorities and the Committee on Religious Affairs, explaining that this occurred while he was outside Uzbekistan. The defendant asked the court for leniency, citing his role as the family’s breadwinner, his minor children, health issues, and ongoing academic research.

After an hour-long hearing, the court found Mubashir Ahmad guilty under Part 2 of Article 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic, or religious hatred), Part 3, Subparagraph “d” of Article 244-1 (preparation, storage, distribution, or display of materials threatening public safety and order), and Article 244-3 (unlawful preparation, storage, import, or distribution of materials of religious content) of the Criminal Code.

He was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment under Article 57 (imposition of a lighter sentence) and in accordance with Articles 59 (sentencing for multiple crimes) and 61 (rules for calculating combined sentences). The sentence is to be served in a general-regime correctional colony.

The court also ordered the suspension and blocking of Mubashir Ahmad’s online platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, and YouTube channels under the names “Mubashir Ahmad” and “Azon Global – Opposing Information and Analytical Channel.”

The parties were informed that they have the right to appeal the verdict to the Tashkent City Criminal Court within the period specified by law.

Writer Nurulloh Muhammad Raufkhan, who considered the charges superficial, commented on the court’s decision. He expressed surprise that the defendant was convicted under all three articles and described the blocking of Mubashir Ahmad’s publications as regrettable from the standpoint of freedom of expression.

“We hoped for the best, as there were grounds for optimism. In previous hearings, many of the charges were not proven, and they seemed superficial. So we expected a much lighter sentence. Unfortunately, we were surprised when the court found him guilty on all counts. Although the judge noted that the sentence was lighter than the minimum stipulated by law, it did not bring peace of mind. From a freedom of speech perspective, the blocking of Mubashir Ahmad’s content is a regrettable step. Given modern technology, such blocking is practically impossible. In today’s world, people can always find alternative ways to access information,” he said.

Raufkhan also pointed out that the silence of religious scholars and the Muslim Board of Uzbekistan regarding the arrest and trial of Mubashir Ahmad, who previously taught Hanafi jurisprudence and Usul al-Fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) at the Tashkent Islamic Institute, is unsurprising.

Lawyer Dilshod Boyturaev, expressing dissatisfaction with the verdict, stated that he disagreed with the court’s decision and that the issue of filing an appeal would be discussed with his client.

“Based on our defense position, we do not agree with the court’s verdict. We will consult with my client and decide whether to file an appeal,” he said.