Claim: Imran Khan is not a suitable candidate for the role of Oxford University’s Chancellor as the former premier is a religious reactionary who lauded the resurrection of the Afghan Taliban, and denounced Western values of free speech. Moreover, Khan is not a victim of political persecution as is evident by his sordid record of court convictions.
Fact: These claims are misleading. They are based on incomplete information and the analysis of Khan’s statements lacks context. Moreover, the article fails to consider a balanced view of the circumstances around the legal allegations and proceedings against the former premier.
Fact or Fiction?
There are three misleading claims made by the article in The Telegraph. These claims provide inaccurate or one-sided information regarding Imran Khan’s stance on the Afghan Taliban, his statements on freedom of speech in France, and the article also neglects to consider the complete picture of the legal allegations against him.
Did Imran Khan say the Taliban were “a blessing from Allah?”
The article in The Telegraph states that a reason why Imran Khan is unfit for the role of Oxford University’s Chancellor is that he “lauded the resurrection of the Taliban…as “a blessing from Allah.” However, no source was provided to support this claim.
Conducting a keyword search on Google for “Imran Khan,” “Taliban,” and “blessing from Allah,” Soch Fact Check was led to a video posted to the YouTube channel of the Hindustan Times, titled “’Taliban’s Return A Blessing’: Imran Khan lauds Islamists as terror bleeds Pak yet again.” The video is dated 3 February 2023.
At the start of the video, Khan is shown saying that Allah sent a blessing upon the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the form of American-trained Afghan soldiers laying down their weapons, President [Ashraf] Ghani leaving Afghanistan, and the Taliban government immediately coming to power.
Seeing that Khan was dressed as though he might be addressing the nation, Soch Fact Check found the complete video of the address this clip was taken from.
The video was streamed live on YouTube on 1 February 2023, titled “🔴 LIVE | Chairman PTI Imran Khan’s Address to Nation.” Between the timestamps of 19:47–20:13, Khan remarks how Allah sent a blessing upon the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
While the article in The Telegraph construes this to mean that Khan supports the Taliban government — making sure to reference how it “banned Afghanistan’s women from receiving an education” — putting Khan’s statement within the context of the minutes building up to it is important.
Between 16:25–17:23, Khan talks about his past concerns over the withdrawal of the US military from Afghanistan in 2021. He says that the withdrawal of American troops could have left a power vacuum in Afghanistan that could potentially have turned into a civil war between the Afghan soldiers and Taliban militants. The “fallout” of such a war, according to Khan, would also be felt in Pakistan. There was also the fear of America imposing “sanctions” on Pakistan as they already saw Pakistan as a reason for their military failure in Afghanistan.
It is in this context that Khan goes on to say that it was a blessing that the Afghan soldiers laid down their weapons, that President Ghani left the country, and that the Taliban government came into power, as this did away with the threat of Pakistan having to deal with a potential civil war in Afghanistan and sanctions from the United States. He further stated, between 20:14–20:19, that in the event of such a civil war, Pakistan would have suffered the most.
Various sources have echoed Khan’s sentiments regarding the threat of violence in Afghanistan spreading into Pakistan. According to a paper published by public policy research firm RAND in 2019, some of the major potential consequences of the US’s withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan were that the “government in Kabul begins to lose influence and legitimacy,” “Power moves from the center to the periphery,” and “Afghanistan descends into a wider civil war.”
Barnett R. Rubin, a scholar at the Center on International Cooperation (CIC) at New York University, writing about regional concerns after the US withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, said that “Concerns over international terrorist groups topped the agenda of Afghanistan’s neighbors, all of whom are more at risk than the distant US.”
Andrew Scobell, writing for the United States Institute of Peace about the regional responses to the Afghan Taliban’s takeover in 2021, states that there exists “significant worry about the militant spillover into Pakistan, especially amid the re-emergence of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.” Scobell references an article by Amira Jadoon, assistant professor at the Combating Terrorism Center and the Department of Social Sciences at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, which states that “the Afghan Taliban’s potential political ascendency in a post–peace agreement Afghanistan…may enable the TTP to redeploy its resources within Pakistan.”
Moreover, it should be noted that the US negotiated with this same Afghan Taliban government, as was seen in the Doha Agreement of 29 February 2020. In fact, Rubin further notes in his report that because of a lack of “high-level diplomatic or political effort,” the US essentially “allowed the Taliban to seize power by default when the government collapsed.”
The article in The Telegraph, however, ignores this context—the fact that multiple sources have reiterated Khan’s concerns of a violent spillover into Pakistan and that the US itself has negotiated with the same Afghan Taliban government. Rather, it simply claims that Khan views the Taliban government as “a blessing from Allah.” It would be more accurate to say that Khan viewed the Taliban’s ascent to power as the tail-end of a process that helped avoid an Afghan civil war that could have adversely affected Pakistan.
Did Imran Khan lash out at France for preaching free speech?
The article in The Telegraph, claims that Khan lashed out at France for “preaching free speech.” Again, the author does not provide a source to support this claim, and paints Khan as someone against free speech as a whole.
What is most likely being referred to here is the murder of a French school teacher on 16 October 2020 for showing the controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons to his students.
In the wake of this incident, French President Emmanuel Macron labelled the teacher, Samuel Paty, as a “quiet hero.” The cartoons were displayed on government buildings in France, and French authorities “closed a mosque outside Paris and banned a handful of Muslim organizations deemed at odds with secular values.”
On 25 October 2020, Imran Khan posted a series of tweets regarding the situation in France. He spoke to the further “polarisation” and “marginalisation” that had been created as a result of President Macron’s actions. Khan also stated that Macron had “chosen to encourage Islamophobia by attacking Islam.” A screenshot of these posts is shown below:
It is important to understand how Khan has, on at least two occasions, described this tussle between free speech and blasphemy as one that is part of a “vicious cycle of violence.” In an interview with Middle East Eye, Khan stated that authorities clamping down on Muslims in the wake of tragedies such as the murder of Samuel Paty only leads to more violence. Khan also repeated this sentiment in his address to the nation on 19 April 2021. Between the 6:13–7:15 mark, he talks about how instances of blasphemy recur every few years, and are tainted by high levels of violence.
Khan’s concern over further polarisation and marginalisation of the Muslim community in France has been echoed by Ramzan Kadyron, current head of the Chechen Republic. Kadyron stated that “President Emmanuel Macron was contributing to the radicalisation of people by insisting that caricatures of Prophet Muhammad fell under free speech.” Similarly, Malaysia expressed grave concerns over the “growing open hostilities towards Muslims following Paty’s brutal killing.”
In fact, just a day after the murder of Paty, two Muslim women were the victims of a knife attack near the Eiffel Tower by attackers who had reportedly shouted racial slurs like “dirty arabs.” Moreover, France’s Interior Minister Gerald Darminin made controversial remarks like “the existence of halal food sections in stores encourages Muslims to isolate from the rest of French society.” This remark can be seen here on X as well. Darmanin also expressed his determination to “shut down a number of organisations, most prominently Muslim charity BarakaCity and the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF).” Marwan Muhammad, an activist and co-founder of CCIF, stated that “the [French] government is focused on stigmatising and criminalising Muslim communities.” Speaking to Middle East Eye, Yasser Louati, a political activist and head of the Committee for Justice and Freedoms for All (CJL), said that Darmanin’s comments were “concerning.” Louati also stated that President Macron was “using Islamophobia to power his campaign.”
It is also significant to note that countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia also condemned the way the French government handled the aftermath of Paty’s murder, and called on their citizens to boycott French goods and products. The New York Times also reported that Kuwait’s foreign ministry “criticized linking Islam to terrorism,” and Jordan’s foreign ministry condemned the “continued publication of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad under the pretext of freedom of expression.” Moreover, “an estimated 40,000 people took part in an anti-France rally” in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Regarding the French government’s hardline actions in the aftermath of Paty’s murder, Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister at the time, stated on X that “Insulting 1.9B Muslims—& their sanctities—for the abhorrent crimes of such extremists is an opportunistic abuse of freedom of speech.”
It is important to contextualise Khan’s words in the backdrop of blasphemy and what he (and other leaders of Muslim nations) perceived as the French government’s poor handling of the aftermath of Paty’s murder. While the article in The Telegraph paints him as a reactionary voice against free speech as a whole, Khan’s words oppose speech that could fuel Islamophobia in France. In particular, he criticised how Macron’s statement could potentially add to the divide between minorities, rather than promote free speech.
An incomplete picture of the allegations against Khan
The article in The Telegraph also cites the numerous legal allegations against Khan as reason for him being unfit for the position of Chancellor at Oxford University. It states that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) convicted Khan of “pocketing gifts from foreign dignitaries,” and that a Pakistani conman “funnelled millions of dollars to Khan’s party via a charitable front.” The author ends the paragraph by stating that “Khan denies all these allegations and insists they are politically motivated.”
While these statements are clearly meant to portray Khan as a convict, it should be noted that a United Nations human rights working group issued a document on 18 June 2024 saying that his detention in the first and second Toshakhana cases, cipher case, and Iddat case is arbitrary and in violation of international law.
The first Toshakhana case pertained to Khan deliberately not declaring his assets and liabilities “filed by him for the year 2020–21.” The second Toshakhana case convicted Khan’s wife, Bushra Bibi, along with him “for retaining a jewellery set received from Saudi crown prince against an undervalued assessment.” The cipher case pertained to the breaching of state secrets and sentenced both Khan and his foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi to ten years in prison. Lastly, the Iddat case sentenced both Khan and Bushra Bibi to seven years of jail for “contracting marriage during the ‘Iddat’ (period of waiting)” of the ex-prime minister’s wife.
Regarding the first Toshakhana case and the cipher case, page 10 of the United Nations’ document stated that “Mr. Khan’s arrest, detention and prosecution…were without any legal basis and would appear to be politically motivated to exclude his participation in the election.”
Moreover, regarding the second Toshakhana and Iddat cases, the report declared that it “cannot but observe the coincidence in the timing of the four prosecutions, which effectively prevented Mr. Khan from contesting the general election originally scheduled for November 2023.”
Amnesty International also issued a public statement that demanded Pakistani authorities immediately release Khan from arbitrary detention. On the first page of its statement, the human rights organisation notes that the “multiplicity of cases against Imran Khan are consistent with a pattern of misuse of the criminal justice system in Pakistan to intimidate, harass and target political opposition leaders through politically motivated cases.” Furthermore, on the fourth page, it states that in at least three of the cases—the cipher case, Iddat case, and first Toshakhana case—“Khan has not been allowed adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.”
There was also significant backlash from Pakistani human rights organisations and lawyers regarding the validity and unprecedented nature of the Iddat case itself. Women’s Action Forum (WAF) posted on X that it was “dismayed at the verdict of Bushra Bibi #Iddat case,” and that it set a “dangerous precedent for state’s intrusion into the private lives of citizens.”
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) posted a statement on X that echoed these sentiments, saying that the verdict on the Iddat case has “troubling implications for people’s right to privacy, particularly women’s right to dignity during court proceedings and to make decisions about divorce and marriage without the intrusion of the state.” It further noted that because Khan had been “convicted four times over in five months in a series of trials,” it raised serious concerns regarding due process, right to counsel, and fair trial.
Reema Omer, Senior Legal Advisor, South Asia at the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), stated on X that the proceedings and convictions in the Iddat case were a “damning blot on our justice system.”
After an Islamabad sessions court acquitted Khan and Bushra Bibi in the Iddat case on 13 July 2024, many lawyers took to X to support the decision. Lawyer Salaar Khan termed the Iddat case the most “absurd” and “vile” of the cases against Khan and Bushra Bibi. Barrister Ahsan J. Pirzada stated that the fact the case “was allowed to proceed against @ImranKhanPTI & #bushrabibi raises a question mark on our judicial system & its impartiality.”
Hence, the article in The Telegraph neglects to consider a complete picture of the legal allegations and proceedings against Imran Khan, when they are clearly suspect even by organisations like the United Nations and Amnesty International. Before the publication of the article in The Telegraph, these organisations had already deemed the proceedings against Khan and his subsequent detention as violating international law.
Virality
The article was shared on X here and here.
Conclusion: The article in The Telegraph makes claims about Imran Khan that lack proper context, are based on incomplete information and fail to consider a balanced view of the circumstances around the legal allegations and proceedings against the former premier. Soch Fact Check, therefore, rates this article as misleading.
—
Background image in cover photo: The Telegraph
To appeal against our fact-check, please send an email to appeals@sochfactcheck.com