Place your cursor on the ‘green screen’ to see the hidden text.
On April 6, 2025, Mohammed Hijab, one of the world’s biggest Muslim influencers on YouTube, was accused by an unidentified party, using the pseudonym Aisha, of engaging in a secret marriage of convenience with her and then divorcing her, which is adultery or fornication according to Islamic law. The name Aisha clearly plays on Mohammed and Aisha: an Islamophobic trope. Since Aisha’s accusation is a legal confession of fornication, she must receive the penalty for fornication. Also, since she produced no witnesses to the marriage or the divorce when she accused Hijab, she is guilty of slander. However, since she swore that she told the truth and invoked the curse of God on her if she is lying, then Hijab must do the same if she receives the penalty for fornication. If not, then she is guilty of perjury. If Hijab counters her oath and imprecation after she receives the penalty for fornication, then she is also guilty of perjury. Those who spread rumors about the case are guilty of slander if true and perjury if false.
The video below provides a helpful summary of this case.
Applicable law: Sunni Islamic law (shari’a), jumhoor.
Location(s): International (London, UK, and Dallas, TX).
Accusers
Salman Ateequi is a business analyst who lives in Dallas, Texas1. He runs a website called Behind Veils and social media channels that are dedicated to accusing Muslim public figures of sex scandals and criminal offenses.
“Aisha” is an unidentified party who accused Mohammed Hijab, through Salman, of secretly marrying her for convenience.
Accused
Mohammed Hijab is a famous Muslim YouTuber with 1.3M subscribers.
Salman Ateequi published accusations against Hijab by “Aisha” on his YouTube channel and website on April 6, 2025, claiming that Hijab had secretly married “Aisha” for convenience.
“Aisha” claimed that she married Hijab without her father’s permission2 and that Hijab divorced her (by talaq) because she did not sexually satisfy him3. She later claimed that her father approved the marriage4 and that she applied for a khul‘ (a divorce initiated by the wife) since Hijab refused to fulfill her marital rights5.
Mohammed Hijab denied the marriage, referred to Bushra as a “Stalker”, challenged her to prove her claims and refused to requite her imprecation6.
Mohammed Hijab or his agents or advocates at @falseaccusationsuk (‘Hijab’) produced a purported recording of his teacher, Sheikh Mohammed Tarawneh, who said he was not a witness to the marriage7, as “Aisha” claimed8. He also produced a purported recording of “Aisha” where she states: “I didn’t marry him, but if I told people this, they would think I’m crazy”9.
Salman Ateequi produced purported text messages between “Aisha” and Hijab10 and purported recordings of her, Dr. Abu Ayah and Sheikh Mohammed Tarawneh, as well as an unpublished interview of “Aisha” by Hijab’s friend, Ali Dawah, where he encourages her to accuse Hijab (whom she did not identify) in public.
Ali Dawah produced purported recordings of “Aisha” where she says that she used to look up to Hijab like a god and curses him and his wife and children. She also says she would seek out the vilest people and shake hands with the devil to destroy Hijab and his family11.
Mohammed Hijab argued that he would not make li’an against Bushra, otherwise any women could accuse Muslim men, without proof, of secretly marrying them12. Hijab also argued that if Salman claims that his (Hijab’s) evidence is fabricated, then it is the same kind of ‘evidence’ that Salman produced13.
Salman Ateequi argued that Hijab and Dawah deliberately concealed and fabricated evidence14 and blackmailed witnesses15.
The four witnesses whom both sides acknowledged are Mohammed Hijab, Ali Dawah, Sheikh Mohammed Tarawneh, Bushra16 and her father.
Mohammed Hijab is a public figure. Unlike “Aisha”, who refused to identify herself or produce verifiable evidence or witnesses against Hijab, Hijab and Ali Dawah not only identified Bushra but also both testified against her. In addition, Hijab produced a purported recording of Sh. Tarawneh—Bushra’s own alleged witness to the marriage—where he states that Bushra contacted him to tell him about a problem and he gave her the benefit of the doubt. However, he is not a witness17. Hijab also produced a purported recording of Bushra where she states that she never married him and that she made up the whole story, so no one would think she is crazy. If true, this is proof against Salman and Bushra.
“Aisha” was never identified and is therefore not a valid witness or source of information, unless it can be independently verified, which is not the case for any of her claims or evidence. Bushra contacted Salman and Islamophobes18 as early as August 202419 to publicize her accusations against Hijab. Indeed, the names ‘Mohammed and Aisha’ are an Islamophobic trope20.
“Aisha” claims that she and Hijab agreed to keep their relationship a secret from his wife and children. They would meet at a hotel for sex through different entrances. Hijab would cover his face. She claims that Hijab divorced her on the pretext he was not sexually satisfied with her. However, she subsequently changed stories, claiming that she divorced him because he refused to fulfill her marital rights21. She also claims to have been involved in proselytism (da’wa) and that her father was involved in it as well. Yet, she claimed she “had no family in the country”22—namely, the UK—where she lived alone, without a mahram23. She claims that Hijab never met her father and that she ignores the identities of the witnesses to the “secret marriage”24, whom she failed to produce when she accused Hijab.
In short, “Aisha” produced no witnesses. The Qur’an states concerning similar accusations that were made against the Prophet’s ﷺ wife Aisha:
Truly, those who came up with the scandal are a gang among you. You may think it a bad thing, although it is good for you25. Each of them incurred a portion of sin, and the chief among them26 shall have a great punishment.
When they heard it, why didn’t the believing men and women presume the best and say: “That is obviously false.”
Why didn’t they produce four witnesses? If they produce no witnesses, they are liars in the eyes of God.27
Ali Dawah identified “Aisha” as Bushra28. Salman’s recording of “Aisha’s” ‘father’ similarly refers to her as Bushra29.
Salman Ateequi is not a witness. Even he was, he would not be a valid witness, as he was excommunicated from Valley Ranch Islamic Center30. He also runs a website and social media channels whose purpose is to accuse Muslim public figures instead of referring cases to legal and forensic experts, as Islam requires31. Salman’s ex, Dunia Shuaib—a “marriage educator and author”32 with Yaqeen Institute—accused him of domestic violence, adultery and attempted murder33. Salman in turn accused her of the same34 and invoked the curse of God on him if he is lying35. Their multiple divorces36; illicit premarital relationship; surreptitious recordings of each other, which they later published; cuckoldry; and mutual imprecations and accusations of capital offenses like attempted murder and adultery prove that they are the archetypal pair37 of fasiqoon38.
Salman published accusations on his website despite admitting that they do “not meet Islamic legal thresholds” 39, which is a felony (hadd) in Islamic law. Indeed, if female accusers are to be taken on their word (the #MeToo position), as Salman presumes, then Dunia’s testimony against him is damning. Not only is his #MeToo position anti-Islamic, but he also judges Muslims without applying the same standards to himself. Note also that Salman and Dunia solicited, and therefore promised to accept, the judgment of non-Muslim authorities40 who found both of them to be liars41.
Salman, who fabricates evidence42, accused Hijab of doing the same43. He also called it a “demonic trick” by Ali Dawah to publish statements by Dunia to ‘absolve himself of the sin of accusing Salman of zina’44. Yet, Salman did the same thing to Hijab by using statements he attributed to Bushra.
As pressure from orthodox (Sunni) Muslims mounted against Salman—an unqualified third party—for making scandalous accusations on the internet and taking ‘Islamic justice’ into his own hands, he posted that “Aisha” sought the intervention of the Islamic Council of Europe for her divorce45. As a result, the Council repeatedly ordered Salman to take down the videos from YouTube, which he refused to do, blaming Hijab for controlling the head of the Council, Sh. Haitham Al Haddad, and consequently the Council itself46. Yet, the Council’s only job is to confirm the identity and testimony of the witnesses, since Islamic law is not in dispute.
“Aisha”‘s father, like “Aisha”, was not identified. Moreover, his purported testimony indicates that he did not approve the marriage with Hijab47. No evidence was tendered to show that he changed his mind afterwards. Even if he did, this was not Bushra’s original submission. Hence the damage cannot be undone.
Sheikh Mohammad Tarawneh says, in Salman’s initial recording, that Bushra told him she was married to Hijab. He did not claim to have solemnized or witnessed the marriage48. In Hijab’s recording, he says he was not a witness to the marriage49. Salman subsequently impeached Tarawneh, claiming that Hijab blackmailed him50. What is evident is that Sh. Tarawneh does not want to testify. Even if he did, Salman impeached him, which does not help his case either way.
General principles
The accuser bears the onus of proof51.
The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty52.
Public claims must be decided based on public knowledge53.
Halal and Haram are black and white. Between them is a gray zone that should be treated as black54.
Offenses should be pardoned55 or reported to a qadi56.
Penalties should be averted, as much as possible57.
“Secret marriage” is zina
Forbidden things are the kinds of things people want to keep secret58.
Marriage aims to publicly prove the parties’ consent59. Correspondingly, the requirements for marriage include:
– the intention60 to please God, which includes the intention to build a strong family61 and a loving relationship62
– consent of the legal guardian (wali)63
– consent of the bride, as indicated by her acceptance of a nuptial gift (mahr) from the groom, which is valuable consideration64, a token of her consent to conjugal relations65 and a pledge like the staff and cord of Judah66
– a sealed67 prenuptial agreement68, if the parties so choose
– all transactions must be witnessed by at least two unimpeachable independent adult Muslim male witnesses69 (the testimony of women, children and slaves must be corroborated, since they are dependent70)
– a public ceremony71 in the masjid72 (“The difference between Halal and Haram in marriage is beating timbrels and raising a din73.”)
A couple who marry without the consent of the woman’s wali are guilty of zina74.
A “secret marriage” (nikah as-sirr) with insufficient witnesses, or any flaw in its attestation, is zina75.
Divorce, like marriage, must be attested by at least two unimpeachable independent adult Muslim male witnesses76.
“Marriage of convenience” is zina
A “marriage of convenience” (zawaj al-mut’a) is zina77.
Marriage cannot be intended for divorce or just for sex, which are illegal conditions78.
People who seek loopholes in Islamic law are cursed79.
The Prophet ﷺ foretold that Muslims will claim that alcohol is Halal, as they will call it by another name80. “Secret marriage” is likewise zina by another name.
Lying is perjury
Lying leads to corruption and corruption to hell81.
The Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever lies in my name, let him take his place in hell.”82
‘White lies’83 are only permissible when necessary in war or peacemaking84. However, they cannot change or violate the law of God85. The exemplar is Abraham, who told Abimelek that Sarah is his sister, since she is his half-sister and his sister in faith86. He also consulted with Sarah87, who agreed to this plan88 to save their lives.
Publishing private text messages between spouses is slander
Publishing or accessing private text messages between spouses is a form of public indiscretion, which is analogous to public intoxication and slander89. It is also eavesdropping, which is analogous to spying90. These are severe criminal offenses, especially against one’s former spouse91.
Non-mahram men and women are forbidden to communicate in private92.
Spouses are clothes to each other93. They must ‘cover each other’s shame’94, unless it is a crime that needs to be reported to Muslim authorities95.
A public accusation is slander, even if true96, especially if it is an accusation of zina without proof97.
The Prophet ﷺ would believe an indiscrete woman is guilty of zina without proof98.
The sins of Muslims will be forgiven, except those who publish the sins of others99.
God conceals the faults of those who conceal the faults of others and exposes the faults of those who expose the faults of others100.
Proof of zina
There are four ways to prove zina; namely, witnesses, pregnancy, confession101 or forensics102.
If the parties make mutual imprecations, that decides the matter once and for all, even if proof manifests afterwards103. (In that case, God wanted the liar to be known, but not to punish them.)
A woman who claims to have married without the consent of her wali confesses her guilt of zina104. If she recants her confession or the man denies it, then she is also guilty of perjury105.
If a person who accuses another person of zina fails to produce four unimpeachable independent adult Muslim male witnesses to the penetration106, then they must swear they are not lying four times and then invoke the curse of God on them if they are lying the fifth time107. The accused must then reciprocate the oaths and imprecation108.
Failure to make an imprecation is a deemed confession109.
A curse always finds its target. It searches everywhere for it, and if it fails to find it, returns to the one who invoked it110.
Before a woman invoked the curse of God on her, the Prophet ﷺ interjected: “Stop her! For it will inevitably bring God’s punishment on the liar.”111
The following are not credible witnesses:
– a traitor112
– one whose claim precedes or follows their evidence113
– one who bears a grudge114
– a coached witness115
– an excommunicated person, until they repent and the term of their excommunication expires116
Penalties
The penalty for fornication is 100 stripes and excommunication for a year117.
The penalty for spying is blinding, which is traditionally done by cautery with a red-hot iron rod118.
The penalty for perjury is 80 stripes. The testimony of a perjurer is invalid until they repent119.
The penalty for slander is 80 stripes120. The testimony of a slanderer is invalid until they repent121.
Where accusations are made before a Muslim public, the guilty party must be exposed and punished122 before the Muslim public123. (“Whoever these awful things befall should cover them with the veil of God. Whoever exposes their wrongdoing shall be dealt with according to the Book of God.”124)
The penalty for adultery is 100 stripes125 and then stoning, which is tantamount to excommunication if they ‘run away and never return’126.
Stripes are traditionally delivered to the fleshy parts of the upper back127 with a flexible switch128 like a palm stalk or the leather straps of a sandal129. They should be painful130 and humiliating131, but should not lacerate clothing or flesh132, especially for a woman133.
Penalties should not be accompanied or followed by injurious words134, since they are expiation135.
“Aisha” is guilty of zina according to her own accusations, evidence and admissions, the penalty for which is 100 stripes and excommunication for a year136. She is also guilty of slander for failing to produce the required evidence when she accused Hijab. The penalty for slander is 80 stripes and the invalidation of her testimony until she repents137. If she recants her oath or Hijab forswears it, then she is also guilty of perjury, for which the penalty is the same as slander138. She is also guilty of spying, for publishing what she purports to be private correspondences with her ex-husband (Hijab), the penalty for which is blinding139.
Mohammed Hijab’s failure to requite Bushra’s imprecation is a deemed confession of adultery, for which the penalty is 100 stripes and excommunication140. However, Bushra’s imprecation is invalid, since she has to identify herself. Moreover, Hijab does not have to requite her imprecation until she receives the penalty for fornication. Otherwise, she is guilty of perjury, and her curse is upon her. Hijab would thus be proven innocent, obviating the need for him to do li’an.
Salman Ateequi and other third parties who spread rumors in public (i.e., scandalmongers141) are guilty of slander if what they said is true142 or perjury if what they said is false143.
Since Hijab was accused in public, the accusers must prove the claim in public144 and the guilty parties must be punished in public145.