Statement by Farhad Qarar on the Expert Reports by
Dr. Guido Steinberg

Translation of the german summary

Content of Farhad Qarar's Statement on the Expert Opinions of Dr. Guido Steinberg

This page summarises the central counterstatement by Farhad Qarar to the accusations raised against him, to the role of the Graz Public Prosecutor's Office, and to the expert opinions of Dr. Guido Steinberg. The full statement was originally written in connection with an Austrian investigation procedure and is directed against the portrayal that Qarar spread jihadist or "IS"-aligned thought, moved people to leave for combat zones, or supported a terrorist agenda.

The statement pursues a clear goal: Qarar states here that the accusations raised against him are not supported by concrete evidence, but are based on selective evaluation, speculative conclusions, and an erroneous interpretation of theological statements. The author points out that his actual publications and numerous official statements show precisely the opposite of the accusations raised against him.

Central Position of the Statement

The central statement of the writing is: Farhad Qarar rejects the portrayal that he is a jihadist, "IS" supporter, intellectual preparer of departures to the so-called "Islamic State," or supporter of terrorist violence. The statement counters this by saying that Qarar was falsely classified over many years and points to several state and non-state sources with exculpatory statements.

In the first part of the statement, 30 statements from four state sources are compiled. These include information from the LVT Vienna, the Baden-Württemberg Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the Graz Higher Regional Court, as well as statements from the expert opinions of Dr. Guido Steinberg himself. These statements are cited by the author as evidence that no call to participate in terrorist organisations, no call to leave for "IS," no dissemination of jihadist thought, and no concrete support of jihadist activities has been demonstrated.

It is especially emphasised that even in Steinberg's expert opinions, statements are included according to which no open call to participate in radical-Islamist terrorist organisations is found in Qarar, he expressly rejects armed struggle in the present, and in the available materials there is no indication that he could have called for departure.

Criticism of the Expert Opinions of Dr. Guido Steinberg

An essential part of the statement is directed against the expert opinions of Dr. Guido Steinberg. The author does not deny that Steinberg has expertise on contemporary jihadist groups. However, he criticises that Steinberg does not treat theological questions, Islamic-legal terms, and historical concepts with sufficient precision.

The statement accuses Steinberg in particular of not having considered, or not having adequately considered, exculpatory passages from Qarar's publications. This includes a passage in which Qarar does not glorify war, but describes it as a "necessary evil" that should not be longed for. Likewise, the author points out that he declared in his writings that an actual Islamic state does not exist in the present. By this he shows that he precisely did not recognise the so-called "IS" as a legitimate Islamic state.

Qarar states here that these statements contradict the thesis that he represented an "IS"-aligned or jihadist position. The statement argues that Steinberg overlooked such exculpatory statements and instead constructed a proximity through terms such as "jihadist imprint," "Takfirism," or "sympathy" that does not emerge from the author's texts in a sustainable way.

Criticism of Terms Such as "Takfirism," "Excommunication," and "Jihadist Imprint"

A separate focus of the statement lies on theological and conceptual criticism. The author considers Steinberg's use of the term "Takfirism" imprecise and misleading. He distinguishes between a theological assessment of whether a certain action or conviction is considered un-Islamic according to Islamic understanding and a political or violence-related ideology.

Qarar argues that "takfīr" cannot be equated in a blanket manner with "excommunication" and certainly does not automatically prove proximity to violence, terrorism, or jihadism. The statement sees a central error in this: religious terms are shifted by the expert opinions into a security-policy interpretive framework, without concrete criminal-law actions being derivable from this.

The term "jihadist imprint" is also criticised. The author emphasises here that this term does not replace concrete evidence. Even if a theological doctrine has historical overlaps with other currents, this does not automatically entail support for modern jihadist organisations or terrorist practice.

On the Claim of a Connection to Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi

Another point in the statement concerns the accusation that Farhad Qarar translated or disseminated writings by Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi or belonged to a so-called "Maqdisi faction". Qarar expressly rejects this portrayal.

In the statement, he says that he is being attributed, without concrete evidence, with having translated a book by al-Maqdisi or with having participated in its translation and dissemination. He denies this completely: he neither translated nor disseminated the book in question, did not possess a copy of this translation, and cannot even remember anymore which book this was supposed to have been.

The statement argues that Steinberg speculatively transfers events and statements by other persons from an earlier Viennese mosque environment onto Qarar. The author does not deny that there may have been individual persons there who openly referred to al-Maqdisi. However, he considers it scientifically inadmissible to attribute such statements indiscriminately to everyone who temporarily attended that association. The author also points out that he had not even been in Austria at that time.

At the same time, Qarar calls for concrete evidence that he mentioned al-Maqdisi by name in his own lectures, sermons, or writings, called attention to him, or used statements by him as an argument. As long as such evidence is not provided, the statement describes talk of a "Maqdisi faction" in relation to his person as an unsupported attribution. The statement does not classify this as a proven connection, but as a speculative construction in which the actions of other persons were transferred to him without a sustainable evidentiary basis.

On the Question of Departure to the So-Called "IS"

Another central point concerns the accusation that Qarar directly or indirectly influenced persons to leave for the so-called "IS." The statement decisively rejects this accusation.

The statement points to official and file-documented sources according to which no persons from the environment of the Al-Iman Mosque led by Qarar became known who developed jihadistically or departed towards Syria or Iraq. It is therefore, accordingly, not merely a self-statement, but an official finding documented in the proceedings, especially from the area of the LVT Vienna.

Furthermore, the author sets out that persons from the Graz Taqwa environment had for the most part not read his books, did not know them, or did not understand them linguistically.

The statement therefore raises the question of how such an influence through Qarar's books could be established when the persons concerned had no relevant contact with him, while precisely from his immediate environment no corresponding departures had been established.

The Accusation of Selective Presentation by the Public Prosecutor's Office

The writing also raises severe criticism of the approach of the Graz Public Prosecutor's Office. Exculpatory facts were not sufficiently considered, statements were shortened, and incriminating interpretations were constructed. In this connection, the statement speaks of conjectures, selective evaluation of evidence, and criminal prosecution based on unwanted religious views.

Especially emphasised in the appendix is the statement of Evrim B. The statement points to file passages according to which Evrim B. stated that precisely through Qarar he had moved away from jihadist ideas or had come to know a different understanding of Islam through him. The statement criticises that this statement was turned into its opposite through shortening and loss of context and used against Qarar. In addition, this distorted presentation was continuously maintained despite his explicit reference to it.

Meaning of the Statement

The statement understands itself as a counterstatement by an affected person. Its concern is to oppose the public and legal accusations raised against Farhad Qarar with its own extensively substantiated position.

At the centre is the statement that the criminal-law and public classification of Qarar as jihadist or "IS"-aligned is not compatible with the sources cited by him, his own publications, and several official statements. The writing thereby demands that Qarar's position, his criticism of jihadist groups, and his rejection of terrorist violence be perceived as an independent counter-position.

This summary reproduces the core statements of the statement: Farhad Qarar fundamentally contests the accusations raised against him, criticises the expert opinions of Dr. Guido Steinberg as speculative and theologically imprecise, and sees in his prosecution an example of a problematic expansion of state measures against Muslim persons and currents.

This is an English translation of the German summary.
[Read the German version]