Imām al-Saʿdī (رحمه الله) said:

Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (حفظه الله) said:^[1]

In September 2024, a shaykh from Madīnah, Dr. Arafāt al-Muḥammadī, spread lies and fabrications against me through his social media accounts. These fabrications included the claim that I say: “The Major Scholars are desert bedouins who are not proficient” and, “The Major Scholars follow behind their rulers with a blind-following” that when you want to support a false idea, you “have to topple the status of the scholars” and that I “declare foolish, the saying of the scholars who permitted vaccines” and what is similar. Shortly after, I responded to these claims in a series of articles.

These accusations represent gross distortions and exaggerations based on isolation and generalisation of certain statements or mixing different parts of speech together to form sentences I never said, or making wild inferences from some of my speech that may have been ambiguous and ending up with lies and fabrications.

Dr. Arafāt was shown rejection by many for this errant methodology that he enacted, and almost the entirety of the English-speaking Salafī community worldwide dismissed him and his agenda-driven activities. Being grieved by this, he has revised his strategy and is now pulling the strings from behind the scenes. He has enlisted various proxies to be the new face of his prior failed attempt to penetrate the English-speaking daʿwah.

As of now, some days after ʿEīd al-Fiṭr 1446H (end of March 2025), Dr. Arafāt continues to centrally manage this scheme of bullying and intimidation in order to restore his reputation after his gross violation of the Salafī methodology harmed him and his standing.

As continued silence seems to embolden them more and more in confusing people, and gives the impression that all their claims are true, I have decided to provide a detailed response to their doubts along with some important background information and chronology.

Chronology

This is the current situation as it stands today in the first week of April 2025.

Context

The event of the Covid-19 pandemic response was—by its complex and controversial nature—divisive. This being due to the presence of differing views in religion and in medicine; its theories and approaches. Further still, this was compounded by the fact that, in the non-Muslim lands Muslims are not subject to the political authority of a Muslim ruler. So the Muslims within these lands are governed by their respective laws and policies in their lands wherein they reside, which often differed with those of the Muslim lands.

Even between Muslim nations, there were different views and approaches regarding this event, showing that there is not just one way of dealing with it.

During this time, based upon the texts and the speech of the scholars, I explained the role of scholars, rulers, medical specialists and subjects, what their individual roles are, their connections with each other, and the nature of their reliance upon each other. This was in response to certain people who were spreading confusion and ascribing to scholars what they did not say.

Hence:

• 01  I explained that rulers, being those in authority, have the right to impose restrictions and I defended them for that against the Ḥizbīs. I affirmed that these types of situations are crises and calamities (nawāzil) which the rulers deal with and that within these general crises, where a requirement for a legislative ruling arises, the scholars are returned to.

  

  When some ḥizbīs tried to argue that the plague does not enter Madīnah, so how can the rulers impose restrictions, I wrote an article to refute this and provided reasoning and argument from the texts to show it is justified, in defence of the rulers.

• 02  I explained that scholars do not resolve disputes in medicine and medical theories, but give legislative rulings in the affairs of medicine on the basis of information presented to them, often giving conditional answers. Further, that the individual choice of a scholar in taking a medical treatment or intervention, is not a proof, it simply represents his personal choice. Some people were arguing that because a scholar took a vaccine, then everyone is obliged to, and to not do so, is to oppose the scholars.

• 03  I explained that the scholars are not the ones devising and imposing controversial measures upon populations, out of protection and defence of them against those who were exaggerating. Rather, that this is from the authorities, as part of international cooperation, and the scholars called for obedience in these matters (see the fatwa of the Major Scholars further below).

• 04  I also encouraged repeatedly that anyone who is confused or doubtful, should go to the scholars for a ruling, provided he takes accurate, factual knowledge.

• 05  I explained that discussions about illnesses, their nature, how to treat them, and the scientific basis, or lack of thereof, of measures, interventions and treatments are the domain of doctors and specialists of each nation and their health authorities, not of scholars, because these are purely medical, technical specialisms in which there is no connection to a legislative ruling. As for when there is a connection to a legislative ruling, the scholars are returned to.

• 06  I explained that there are measures that can be taken from the texts, for which the rulers are praised and novel measures, which return to the rulers’ ijtihād, and scholars will support them from the angle of obedience to the ruler in his ijtihād and maintaining order in society, and that in all situations, the rulers and scholars are rewarded, no matter what.

• 07  I also explained that subjects should obey the authorities in order to maintain order, even if they disagree with the measures, and consider the hardships as a trial for sins, without apportioning blame upon the rulers.

• 08  Further, that if we wish to effect change (regarding harsh policies in Muslim countries), we can go to the health authorities, by providing them the relevant scientific and medical evidence, something I myself did in early 2021, which will be detailed later in this report. Further, the scholars themselves would direct us to present this information to the health authorities in any case, and this is also something we experienced later in early 2022.

• 09  I also explained that there are different views regarding contagion, and medical theories and approaches. I clarified some of the errors promoted in these topics by some and said that given that these affairs are differed over, nobody has the right to force others to believe in things against their convictions.

All of these affairs are well-known and mutawātir from me, and people know that.

This was nothing more than imparting existing knowledge (ʿilm) and understanding (fahm) from known Sharīʿah principles and the scholars themselves in how to correctly navigate this affair while accommodating legitimate differences of opinion.

However, some did not pay attention to this and began to accuse myself and others of certain things such as “you will have blood on your hands” and things of an emotional nature. They had various misunderstandings, such as:

• 01  That the political authority of one Muslim government extends to all Muslims in every other nation, hence, all Muslims, including doctors, specialists and researchers, are required to obey the health authorities and accept the medical views and determinations of that one nation.

  However, that nation's government, its health authorities, and officially appointed, state-scholarship have never said that their political or health authority extends to Muslims living in other lands, whether Muslim or non-Muslim countries. Each nation's pandemic response is confined to what is within its own borders, and the subjects of each nation are bound by its laws and regulations, not those of others.

  Thus, they spoke in a nāzilah without returning to the Major Scholars in this matter. This is dangerous, because it is as if you are speaking as a spokesman for the government of that country, and nobody made you the spokesman to make these types of claims.

• 02  That the Major Scholars have declared that Muslim doctors, specialists and researchers are forbidden in their own lands from discussing affairs connected the disease, its true nature, how to treat it, and what the evidence supports or does not support..

  However, no Major Scholar has said that, and this has never happened in history over 1400 years, amid the multitudes of epidemics all across the Muslim world and beyond. The doctors, specialists and researchers in each nation have free reign to investigate and present their findings, and there maybe debate and discussion, as this is the nature of medicine and science. And out of the body of knowledge so acquired, decisions are made.

  Thus, they spoke in a nāzilah without returning to the Major Scholars in this matter.

• 03  That the Major Scholars pass judgements in medical affairs, with the meaning that they evaluate medical claims and resolve the current medical disputes among doctors and specialists, and hence, the medical views and writings of those in other countries should be returned to them.

  No major scholar has said this or provided this line of reasoning. My response to this was that scholars do not evaluate and judge in medical claims and disputes, as that is not their domain, and that they would defer these matters to the health authorities and specialists as they are the ones who look into these affairs. This gave rise to the subsequent misinterpretation and accusation that I was claiming scholars cannot give fatwā in affairs of medicine. However, that is not what I said. This was not related to fatwā but to resolving medical disputes and differences.

• 04  That the Major Scholars were the ones who devised and imposed the measures of lockdowns, distancing rules and wearing of facemasks, in which there is much differing, and effectively managed the entire pandemic response, inclusive of the vaccine rollout.

  This was not true, and the great worry here was that when harmful nature of these affairs becomes evident, this will bring harm upon the scholars, as people may blame them for death, injury and impoverishment caused by these measures all across the world. This is why I sought to protect the Major Scholars, by explaining these things. I explicitly said this to one of the students, but looks like he did not understand it, because he is among those who are involved in the campaign against me.

  Thus, they erected themselves as spokesmen for the Major Scholars, and spoke in a nāzilah with false information that could harm the scholars.

• 05  From the greatest of their confusions is the issue of the “nāzilah” itself, which they use in the most broad, vague and ambiguous manner. We are agreed that the pandemic response is a nāzilah issue, as it is a general crisis affecting Muslims, and we are agreed that within this event, there are situations that require legislative rulings. However, based upon some of the earlier confusions listed, they came out with strange conclusions that none of the Major Scholars said.

  

  For example, that a doctor in Europe cannot advise against a Covid-19 vaccine due to its risks, when he sees people (his own patients) dying suddenly from it, when it has been suspended in many European nations, and when the law of his land actually requires him to do that, if he knows and believes that it is not necessary or will harm a person, with risks exceeding presumed benefits. Here, the doctors are bound by the laws of their own land, not those of another country.

  They claim that doctors, researchers and specialists cannot publish information on this subject unless they get permission first from the Major Scholars. Then they attribute this to the Major Scholars themselves, whereas the Major Scholars, from the officially appointed state scholarship, have never said any such thing. They say: “Return to the Major Scholars”, and yet do not return to the Major Scholars themselves to check if they actually say these things. Hence, they fall into the same thing they accused others of without realising. And so my aim was to point this out to them and stop them from doing this. A clear example of this will be illustrated further below.

  So they are ignoring the fact that this worldwide rollout of the experimental injections was a live clinical trial being conducted on the world's populations under emergency use authorisation. This was the way it was done to provide as much legal cover to all the parties involved. So as the injections were rolled out, data was collected and published, all across the world, by governments, health authorities, in medical and scientific journals, by individual doctors, specialists, or researchers.

  Information about death, injury and harm started accumulating immediately, and within a year there more than a thousand papers in medical journals document these affairs, all in the public domain.

  The information, by the very nature of the event, was open and public, as it was a live experiment, and prior rulings and fatwās already exist that are sufficient to cover the ruling on these injections. They are permissible and are subject to the risk-benefit principle for each individual, and likewise for the health authorities who decide policies in their own countries.

  It very quickly became clear that these injections were neither safe nor effective, while modelling studies with no connection to physical reality were used for the propaganda that the injections saved millions of lives. In the end, it turned out to be another pump and dump scheme like the 2009 Swine Flu Scam and the event highlighted how very sophisticated and well-greased the pandemic machinery has become over the decades.

  I sent such information and advice to the health authorities of the Gulf nations in early 2021 about Covid-19, the PCR test and the injections, as will be explained further below. Also, if a person took this information to the scholars, they would say, “Take it to the health authorities and advise them.”

• 06  The notion that the views of Muslim rulers and scholars in their ijtihāds pertaining to worldly affairs, in which there is much differing, are final and universal, as if infallible and immune from error, and to have contrary views in issues of acceptable differing, despite being supported by other scholars, is to declare them ignorant and foolish.

  So for example, to hold the view of Shaykh Muqbil (رحمه الله) that vaccines are not taken for preventing contagion, as it is negated, is to belittle other scholars and accuse them of being ignorant and not knowing “fiqh al-wāqiʿ”. Or to follow the lead of Shaykh al-Luḥaydān (رحمه الله) in casting doubt about what was said about the “Coronavirus” and be suspicious of the disbelievers and their schemes to sell vaccines is to belittle other scholars, and to follow his example in not masking or distancing in our own lands, where we can do that, and to choose not to take the injection, from the angle of pure reliance (as well as justified suspicion), is to declare other scholars to be ignorant.

Some of these false assumptions fed into others, and collectively, they represented muddled, incoherent thinking, based upon ignorance and confusion regarding Islāmic principles.

Built upon these and other misconceptions, they led many people to believe that they were the ones returning to the scholars and defending them, when in reality, they were opposing them in a way they did not understand, and were setting up the scholars to be blamed and criticised in the future.

In reality, according to their own understanding, they were “delving in the nawāzil” by ascribing things to scholars, or to the authorities, that which they did not say or call to, and by making false claims and commentaries, such as falsely accusing others of lying about Covid-19 vaccines causing death and injury.

Sadly, based upon such misconceptions, false accusations were spread against those who had legitimate views in both religion and medicine, and who alongside that, emphatically called to obedience to the rulers in Muslim lands and returning to scholars for legislative rulings.

Shielding Scholars and Rulers

From the objectives of my writings was protecting and shielding the scholars and rulers from two parties: Those who attack the rulers and claim that they are out to harm their subjects through harsh measures, and those who exaggerate and ascribe to the scholars that which they did not say, who made it appear that the entire pandemic response, along with the harsh measures, were being devised and driven by the scholars, which is not an accurate picture as the scholars were not the architects and managers of the response, it was the health authorities.

Two points should be noted:

Thus, in all of the above is a concrete, evidence-based defence that combines between legislative realities and creational realities. In this manner, we have a correct conception of the entire affair, and are able to speak correctly, upon sound principles and evidences, and provide strong, durable defences of the ruler and scholars, in a way which avoids error and exaggeration in either direction, and is future proof not matter what the turn of events.

In what follows below, I provide historical details and context regarding this issue, with answers and replies to doubts and allegations that have been spread on social media.

In a Nutshell

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER is that on the one hand there were ḥizbīs attacking Muslim rulers and authorities, particularly in Saudi Arabia, for imposing restrictions in early 2020, when the Covid-19 operation began. I spoke against them and refuted their claims. On the other hand, there were students of knowledge who swung to the other side and fell into exaggeration and began making unfounded claims, ascribing to scholars what they did not say, and committing academic crimes in knowledge-based issues, whether religious, or worldly (medical, scientific).

In a way, they thought they were smarter than the Major Scholars themselves by trying to find textual evidences, vague narrations, inauthentic reports, incorrect or incoherent reasoning from these texts or reports, and what is similar for baseless, controversal, unscientific, exaggerated measures such as lockdowns which do nothing but destroy livelihoods and impoverish people, and social distancing of six-feet and universal masking of healthy people which only induce and perpetuate artificial, unwarranted fear and turn healthy people into omens to be feared.

They tried to make it look as if the Major Scholars themselves must have made similar deductions of evidence or at least people were understanding that this must be coming from the scholars themselves.

This came from their unchecked zeal, fervour, with sincere intentions at the time, coupled with confusion and lack of comprehension, which is a dangerous combination.

In this manner, they misled a large body of Salafīs around the world about the factual ground realities. I am also fairly certain that people were sent to their graves due to either the unwarranted fear generated by them and its harmful consequences, or due to the experimental injections, as a result of their posturing and orientation in this entire affair.

Some students did not suffice with what came from the Major Scholars, and instead fell into lying upon Allāh (عز وجل), lying upon the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and lying upon the Companions (رضي الله عنه) and gave the impression that their lies were emanating from the scholars.

I desired to protect the Muslim rulers and the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah from future attack due to the irresponsible, incorrect presentation that these students began to make, making it look as if their own exaggerations and claims were emanating from the scholars. Sincere intentions are not sufficient, and if you want to respect and defend the scholars, you have do it upon knowledge, not mere emotions and sentiments.

To this end, I embarked upon educating people that we must not criticise and attack Muslim rulers for any hardships, and that because they are party to international treaties of cooperation (see further below), they are implementing measures as part of agreements, and this includes measures which have a basis in the Sharīʿah (for which they are thanked) and measures which are novel and disputed, but which nevertheless, the rulers may implement through their ijtihād, and they are rewarded for their ijtihād in all situations. That we have to respect this, and obey them, even though we are not obliged to believe what is without evidence, and that we must consider any harms and difficulties as trials for our sins.

As for the scholars, I refuted the claims of the exaggerators who made it appear that it is the scholars themselves who are devising, executing and managing the entire pandemic response, such that they are the ones who imposed lockdowns, shut down schools and mosques, demanded social distancing and the wearing of facemasks and forced vaccine mandates on populations.

This was a false and very dangerous way of thinking, as it would lead people to blame the scholars for all the hardships, deprivation of livelihood, economic harm and the death and injury that would result from the controversial measures and the experimental injections that people had to take, under threat to livelihood.

Many people understood these affairs, and decided to leave off the exaggerated views, and they also abandoned prior convictions they had, such as belief in contagion. They also let go of the unnecessary fear. All the while, it was understood by everybody, that we obey the rulers and respect the ijtihāds of the rulers and scholars.

This was not to the liking of some, and campaigns were embarked on, some from the East and others from the West to make it look as if I was calling to disobedience to the rulers and abandonment of the scholars. These accusations were built upon taking speech out of context, misprepresenations, and horrendous distortions of the intent and import of my speech.

The Private Voice Notes

IN MAY 2021 I sent some private voice notes to a brother who had questions regarding discussion of medical affairs connected to the Covid-19 pandemic response and taking matters to scholars, and how to respond to doubts and misconceptions.

These private voice notes ended up with Shihāb al-Dīn, an Indian residing in Madīnah, who started misrepresenting what was in them.

English-speaking students from the United Kingdom explained and clarified to this group what was said and intended in the voice notes in question, and they were informed that it was other than what they had been led to believe. Thus, at minimum, this group knew that they were entering into something that was dubious and uncertain. This was during and after Ramaḍān 1445, which is April and May 2024.

Making a Mountain Out of a Molehill

The matter was simple. As this was a private voice note, they could have very easily got in touch and asked for clarification, and the matter would have ended there, without the tribulation they subsequently set in motion in September 2024. I made attempts to acquire the voice notes from this group (as I had lost my Whatsapp messages in 2022) in mid-2024. However, they refused to send them, even while they were making their online attacks against me, all the way into the first few months of 2025.

This is how it should have gone:

Instead, this is how it went:

I learn in April 2024 (Ramaḍān 1446) that there are some voice notes circulating between students and a couple of young shaykhs on the basis of which I am being declared astray and warned against. So I attempted to discover which voice notes they were as I had lost my WhatsApp messages in 2022. I identified who the person was, and made contact with him to ask for the voice notes. No response (deliberately ignored). Then I and others made investigations to find out who the translators were, with no success.

Then, on 19 September 2024, all of a sudden, one of these shaykhs began posting certain allegations on social media based on these voice notes. Using identifying language, he claimed that I belittle the scholars and that I have embarked on a campaign to topple them and to turn people away from them. He published a series of specific allegations, which are quoted verbatim below, and presented in the image:

• That I say: “The Major Scholars are bedouins of the desert, who are not proficient.”
• That I declare foolish the saying of the scholars who said (the vaccination) is permissible.
• That I say: “They (i.e. the Major scholars) follow behind their rulers with a blind following.”
• That I put the youth to trial (examination).
• That I occupy the youth day and night with this issue.
• That I show loyalty and enmity regarding it.
• That I want to topple the status of the scholars to support a false idea
• That I say: “The scholars are unable to oppose the policy of their rulers and hence, gave verdicts about vaccines according to the wish of their rulers.”
• That I say: “The scholars, in addition to not opposing the policy of their rulers, they are not specialists in virology or vaccination. Hence, the scholars are ignorant of the evidences and of scientific foundations, and would be unable to say anything.”
• And the accuser intended to identify me clearly, in a mocking way, by saying: “This is what the doctor, the virus expert says", and people understood this well.

These allegations were either outright fabrications, or they were distortions, or they were interpretations of vague, ambiguous speech that were never intended or even thought of.

When this improper, harmful approach was rejected by many people, including certain mashāyikh inside and outside of Saudi Arabia, the social media poster made a display of wanting ṣulḥ (truce) and taḥākum (arbitration) and of being the oppressed victim, simply because he was replied to and asked to prove his claims. This usually happens when a person is unable to justify his wrong conduct and is looking for an escape route.

The social media poster, Dr. Arafāt al-Muḥammadī, who spread these allegations online, did not send the audios when requested multiple times. He also refused to name his expert bilingual translators from India. This immediately indicated foul play and the presence of an agenda.

He knew he did not have anything that warranted such a large-scale, hateful, public attack. Hence, was reluctant to provide or release the audios because then people would see that in his accusations, he lied upon me and slandered me, having posted such things to tens of thousands of social media followers.

Even if there was something valid from these private audios to use against me, this is not the behaviour of Ahl al-Sunnah towards Ahl al-Sunnah at all, and most people recognised that and found it disturbing, indicating that there are other motives and agendas at play.

Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (حفظه الله) said:^[3]

So much for softness (رفق) and gentleness (لين) with Ahl al-Sunnah!

Practising What You Preach

What is the point in saying and promoting one thing—[don’t be harsh towards Salafīs, don’t drop them for a slip or two, don’t be like the Ḥaddādiyyah, maintain unity and brotherhood, don't cause splits and tribulations, don't take things to social media and cause fitnah]—while in your actions you do the total opposite?

Allāh (عز وجل) said:

And He (عز وجل) said:

Imām al-Saʿdī (رحمه الله) said:

May Allāh protect us and grant us success in combining between knowledge and action.

So in this article, I will point out the numerous deceptions and doubts spread by this network (both on the ground and on cyberspace), clarify any confusion and address any concerns, with Allāh’s permission, which such people may have.

It should be noted that there are many sincere people who, having love for scholars, and not having followed up these matters in detail, and not having read what I have written, and not having read the full transcripts, are concerned about the claims that have been circulated. This is understandable. So anyone who has bad speech against me due to misconceptions, emanating from love of knowledge and its people, then I say: May Allāh reward you for your sincerity, I care not what you said about me and I ask Allāh to overlook it.

As for those who fish and stir in murky waters and have agendas, then it is not possible to satisfy them, and I say: May Allāh protect us from your evil and guide you to being truthful, honest and upright.

An Important Distinction

Before we continue, it is crucial that you distinguish between the following, so that you can clearly understand what is taking place in the field:

01  The Major Scholars, the official state-appointed scholarship, such as the likes of the Muftī, Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Shaykh al-Fawzān, and others such as Shaykh ʿAbd al-Muḥsin, and Shaykh al-Luḥaydān and Shaykh ʿUbayd al-Jābirī when they were alive, and likewise, Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī, may Allāh prolong his life. They called to the Sunnah.

These Major Scholars, with fatāwā regarding the permissibility of taking preventive medicine (vaccines), left the affair for the authorities. They did not delve in the affairs of other countries, since each country has its own domain of authority over its own subjects, and the subjects may be bound by different sets of laws, policies and guidelines.

02  Those less than them who gave fatāwā such as:

a) Declaring the experimental injection for participating in society to be “wājib”, obligatory, which means declaring those who do not do so to be sinners. b) Declaring Muslim doctors all across the world to be “sinful” for doing their religious, professional and legal duty of giving “informed consent” and correctly advising with caution regarding the experimental mRNA injections due to solid, concrete evidence in their possession, which began to accumulate quickly from January 2021. And c) those who, even as late as August 2023 and beyond, falsely accused Muslim doctors, specialists and researchers of lying when they said that the injections cause deaths, which had been an established fact for more than 2 years. This is casting aspersions upon them, denigrating them, and rejecting their integrity.

This helps to make sense of the activities taking place now, as to where they stem from and what their purpose is.

This second group preceded the Major Scholars (the official state-appointed scholarship), themselves entered into the nawāzil—according to how they understand and present it—by giving generalised fatāwā, expressing opinions about the injections, and interfering in the affairs of Muslims in other lands who are bound by different sets of rules. This was the very same thing they accused others of falling into.

As for the Major Scholars, may Allāh reward the greatly and protect them, they derived what can be derived from the texts, said obey the authorities in all other affairs, explained the permissibility of the injection, and they left it at that. They did not interfere in the affairs of other countries, Muslim or non-Muslim, or in the affair of Muslims in non-Muslim lands and accuse upright Salafi doctors, researchers and specialists of being sinners and heretics for doing their legal and professional duty. Rather, these scholars did a service to Muslims across the world by explaining rulings regarding worship, dealings and rights that were affected by the imposition of harsh pandemic measures, while they themselves were not the ones who imposed these measures, contrary to the claims of these people, the exaggerationists.

As for the injections, then in August 2021, in an article on the misuse of a fatwā of Shaykh Bin Bāz (رحمه الله), I demanded those who accuse Muslims of sin for cautiously avoiding the injection in their lands, to return the affair to the Senior Scholars for fatwā in this matter (pp. 40-41), click to view:

So let’s get this straight:

The real reason why there is this current onslaught is because those affiliated with this second group are feeling resentful that the realities of the experimental injections are no longer hidden and this has exposed the fact that they are the ones who preceded the Major Scholars and exceeded the bounds. Now, they are just resentful that these realities should be known.

The Major Scholars, those appointed by the state in official capacity, simply said that vaccines are permissible, this is nothing new, as the ruling on preventive medicine is already known. They left it at that. These Major Scholars did not declare those who did not take them, or the doctors and pharmacists who advised with caution regarding them, to be sinners and heretics, and they knew that the political and health authority of one nation does not extend to other nations. Thus, they did not comment and pass judgement about the activities of doctors, specialists and researchers in other lands.

Hence, they—unlike the Major Scholars who never gave such harsh rulings, and who I was always trying to defend (despite having a different viewpoint on contagion and vaccines)—are trying to shove this issue under the carpet and want all speech about it to stop. “Please, please, stop the fitnah, stop the fitnah, don’t talk about the vaccine anymore.” Yes, we wonder why.

Why would you want such an important, impactful issue to be shoved under the carpet now, when people have been killed and injured by these injections? Does this not require a return to the Major Scholars, the official state-appointed scholarship?

This is exactly what I did.

I returned to the officially appointed scholarship, just as in early 2021, I sent advice of a medical and scientific nature to the health authorities of each of the Gulf countries (details further below).

Hence, “Major Scholars” and “Nawāzil” and “Returning to the Scholars”, these are slogans, true in themselves, but they are being used to divert people's attention from the realities and a more accurate and true account of what has taken place. Rather, for some people, it is an exercise in obstinate denial of factual reality and intellectual dishonesty.

So now I present the various doubts and deceptions spread by this network of leaders, instigators and proxies:

1. DECEPTION: Concealing the actual answer to the original question

In my voice notes, I responded to the brother’s question with a 45 minute voice note in which I explained many things to help him understand the issue. From the affairs I mentioned in this voice note were:

• We must return to scholars when legislative rulings are unclear to us.
• We must obey the rulers and scholars in their ijtihāds.
• That scholars call for obedience to the rulers in their ijtihāds, in accordance with the Sunnah.
• That evaluating medical claims and judging between them is not the domain of scholars (see further clarification on this below).
• We can advise the rulers through legislated means.
• That if we wish to effect change, we give advice in the legislated way to the health authorities and ministers.

There were some other voice notes in between, discussing other issues, and towards the end of the series of voice notes, there was an 8 minute voice note. This is the one they are using to attack me.

A Madīnah graduate from Tamil Nadu in India, and a student and proxy of the social media poster, posted an Arabic translation of this 8 minute voice note online in mid-February 2025. A strange move, considering that this group had been withholding the voice notes from me since mid-2024 while actively warning against me.

In this Arabic transcript this graduate presented the initial question that was put to me, and then made it look as if the 8 minute voice note was the response to the initial question (click for image). This amounts to deception and misleading the reader. He (and whoever is with him) left the 45 minute voice note which was the actual detailed response to the question.

Because I tell the questioner over and over again about returning to the scholars when a fatwā is needed, and that the rulers and scholars should be obeyed and returned to.

For example, some of my many clear statements are the following:

Hence, all the claims about “turning people away from the scholars” and “trying to bring down the scholars” and the allegation that I said that “scholars cannot give fatwā unless they get medical qualifications first” were clearly false.

As for the shorter 8 minute voice note, that came after, and in there I alluded to a few things.

• Firstly, if advice and evidence regarding certain medical opinions or measures are brought to them (as was being requested of me), they will say refer the matter to the health authorities, and they will call to obedience to the authorities in their ijtihāds nevertheless, in accordance with the Sunnah. For this reason, this type of information is for the health authorities, and it is something I had already sent them months earlier. See the fifth doubt further below for details. While giving this medical information to scholars may be desirable, ultimately, they will refer it to their health authorities, and this is what actually happened when I had some of this information regarding the vaccines sent to the Muftī in early 2022.
• Secondly, incidental to the discussion, I casually spoke about the status of health and medicine in the Gulf countries, their heavy reliance on foreign expertise and investment into the allopathic medical system, and that they are mostly consumers (of goods, services and expertise), not producers.^[6] This was simply a socio-economic observation in relation to the contemporary era and is time-bound. It was off the cuff, on the spur of the moment, and was not really intended, it just came to mind in the course of speech.
• Thirdly, then at the end, I returned back to the issue of a scholar not being able to make determination (i.e. settle disputes between people) in medical issues in which people have differed and debated, such as the experimental Covid-19 injections.

This short 8 minute voice note has been deceptively presented as the answer to the original question.

The reader will now understand why. It’s because the first lengthy audio is clear, and it provides the background context for the second shorter one. What they have done is to make interpolations from the isolated 8 minute audio, picked on some ambiguous speech, mixed and merged the three broad issues, and ascribed to me what I did not intend nor say and presented it as the actual answer to the original question. Hence, their accusation that I said, “The Major Scholars are bedouins from the desert who are not proficient”, which is a raw fabrication.

2. DOUBT: I made mockery of a particular shaykh

I explained this in Part 3 of my initial responses which can be read in English and Arabic. Basically, in this 8 minute voice note, which was the last in a series, I was mentioning some miscellaneous things, and from them was what one brother said to me regarding his desire to go to a shaykh to tell him about the vaccines.

I was quoting someone else, who said that if different people went to a shaykh and gave conflicting medical claims, he would not know who to believe. The reason being that medicine and medical claims are not his field of expertise. So they claim that this is mockery of the Shaykh.

I wrote a document clarifying the issue which can be read here:

3. DOUBT: I said the scholars are “bedouins from the desert who are not proficient”

These are false claims and are nowhere to be found in my audios, they are outright lies and slanders. In the 8 minute audio, I went on a slight diversion to talk about the status of scientific and medical advancement in the Gulf Arab states. I said that they are new in this arena and they were catapulted from the simple desert life into modern civilization very rapidly, due to oil riches, and have been heavily reliant on foreign expertise, and that as a result, they are largely consumers, not so much as producers. Likewise, that a Westernised food culture (leading to Western illnesses) has led to an allopathic system of medicine.

So they twisted this part to mean that I was speaking specifically about the scholars, which is not true. I simply made a time-restricted socioeconomic observation in relation to a worldly matter pertaining to status of medicine.

As for this being a revilement of the genus of the Arabs, refer to doubt no. 13 further down.

As for the scholars, then I guide myself by them, their works, statements and fatāwā, and from them:

• Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Luḥaydān on the Coronavirus
• Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Al-Fawzān: The Ruling on Being Frightened of Corona Disease
• Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān: Praying in a Mosque with “Contagious” Influenza
• Shaykh Ibn Bāz on Abandoning Prayer in the Mosque While Sick With Influenza With the Claim of Contagion
• Question to Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān Regarding Not Taking the Covid Vaccine
• Shaykh Muqbil bin Hādī on Contagion, Vaccination and Prevention of 'Transmission'
• Shaykh Al-Albānī on Exaggeration in the Matter of Contagion

So I only operate on whatever is in the fatāwā of the scholars, with the knowledge that when there is an event in which the rulers and authorities implement measures that override the prior fatāwā of the scholars, or require new fatāwā, then we have to go with what the authorities decide, from the angle of the Sunnah in obedience to the ruler in his ijtihād, and this is what the scholars call to as well.

So in all these affairs, I returned to the scholars, their statements and views, but I only accepted that which is correct and supported by evidence, whether in content (when the view in and of itself is correct), or in application of a principle (even if the view itself is not correct).

To illustrate, Shaykh al-Fawzān said that we should take the means and obey the authorities by distancing. Though social distancing between the healthy is without evidence, the principles being applied here, of taking the means and obeying the rulers, are correct in their application. It is the ruler's opinion that it is from the means and that is his ijtihād, and then the scholar can operate upon that, and apply the other principles to it.

So taking this principled, evidence-based approach, following evidence, with respect and consideration for each scholar's view is “toppling the scholars” according to these people. I always knew this as “Salafiyyah”, which is return to evidences and accepting truth (or any espect of it) found in the speech of any scholar.

4. DOUBT: I said the scholars “cannot make a determination” in these affairs.

Regarding my speech, “because they themselves are not specialists in this field, they can’t really make a determination in this field”, they claim this is belittling the scholars.

This is regarding medical affairs and the disputes and differences that exist among people in medical views and approaches. It is not the role of the scholars to evaluate, judge and resolve disputes.

I have presented numerous statements from the scholars wherein they make clear that these types of affairs, or questions that come to them in which medical claims are presented to them, that determining the veracity of these claims is for doctors and specialists. This is something the scholars themselves say.

This speech of mine, isolated from its context, has been used to say that I claim scholars have no knowledge of medical affairs at all, not even in a personal capacity. However, this is not true and was not my intent, as the context of my speech is clear.

5. DOUBT: I said the scholars “blindly follow behind their rulers”

In the lengthy 45 minute audio I explained to the brother that despite there being different views regarding controversial measures, that we must adhere to the Sunnah and hear and obey the rulers and that this is also what the scholars call to, and that we are all in agreement on this matter.

Here are some of my clear statements:

So if I myself repeatedly call for obedience to the rulers in their ijtihāds regarding differed over measures in the voice notes, and I say also that “they (the scholars) are basically going to say obey the rulers” in these affairs, upon the principle of the Sunnah, how is that a revilement? This is why I spread the speech of Shaykh ʿUbayd al-Jābirī in January 2021, to illustrate this point. Which is that a scholar may have a view, but call to obedience to the rulers upon the firm principle of the Sunnah.

Further, the angle and context this brother was coming from (and others besides him) was to say, “Why don’t you inform the scholars about these issues so that maybe they can change the situation (with respect to some of these measures)”.

So my answer to this was that the scholars are not the ones who devise and implement the policies, especially with respect to the measures which are differed over, it is the rulers and health authorities. The scholars will support the measures, and call for obedience.

One can approach the scholars for sure, and that is desirable, but it is not a condition that you have to go through them to get to the health authorities. The health authorities have direct lines of communication, including email.

As for examples of when scholars support the ijtihāds of the rulers and do not oppose them:

If someone went to the scholars and said social distancing of six-feet between the healthy does not have any evidence at all and is made up, they will say: “Go and tell the health authorities and specialists, to advise them, but obey the authorities, nevertheless, in order to maintain unity and order.

As for the scholars whose view and conduct I followed, then it is the likes of Shaykh al-Luḥaydān (رحمه الله), who did not wear masks, nor did he distance, and nor did he take any injections. Likewise, Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) as is well known, he would tell his visitors to take off their masks. And there were among the people of knowledge, who did not take the injections, and even discouraged them (according to reports).

6. Doubt: I am following the way of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd al-Muʿtazilī towards the scholars

On 21 February 2025, in a lecture delivered in German in a European city, another Madīnah graduate who is one of the students of the shaykh, the social media poster, repeated the accusation of traversing the way of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd al-Muʿtazilī, based upon these same doubts, lies and misconceptions.

During 2021, when the Covid injections were being rolled out and deaths and injuries started surfacing, I gave practical, pragmatic advice to people based on where they were living. In the West, I advised those who could avoid taking the injection to do so. In Muslim countries, I advised people to avoid the mRNA injections, and go for any traditional vaccine, such as the Sinovac injection, as the risks are less.

This is keeping in mind that just in the first months of the rollout, over a dozen European countries suspended the Astrazeneca injection and doubts began to be raised about the others. Further, people we knew had died from the injections, and others had been hospitalised with severe injury.

At the same time, there were certain fatāwā that had been issued. From them that is obligatory to take the injection if you wish to leave your home and mingle in society. In other words, you are sinful for not taking the injection while pursuing your livelihood in public. Likewise, that those who advise with caution with respect to these injections are sinful, and following the way of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd al-Muʿtazilī in denigrating the scholars.

For this reason, at the end of that year, I sent a question to Shaykh al-Fawzān in relation to these types of fatwās, as to whether a person is indeed sinful for not taking the injection.

I am not sure how giving such practical advice in order to save people from death, injury and harm, places a person on the path of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd al-Muʿtazilī, so I consider this slander, oppression and effectively, it is tabdīʿ in all but name. It is similar to the accusation that was made that I am attempting to “topple the status of the scholars”.

It is inconceivable that person who traverses the way of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd al-Muʿtazilī and tries to “topple the status of the scholars”, as alleged, could be other than a misguided innovator. This is alongside the fact that some of these people affected by these doubts are openly and explicitly warning against me, in Europe, India, Indonesia and elsewhere, and some of them have been doing so for a while, from around 2023, following the lead of their shaykh, who was already doing that back then, and who later went on to post these false accusations on social media in September 2024.

7. Doubt: I accuse the scholars of shirk

This is one of their oppressive false claims. I never said any such thing.

I explained different views regarding contagion, in response to the false claims which some students of knowledge in the UK and US had spread from around mid-2020 onwards.

So I explained that there are different views among the scholars regarding the issue of contagion, which are acknowledged in both the books of creed, in the subject of Tawḥīd, and in ḥadīth, in the field of apparently contradictory ḥadīths. I explained that no one can be forced to believe in and act upon a particular view in this subject matter, and just because some people are wallowing in fear and anxiety, it does not mean everybody else has to join them. Except of course, where we are bound by regulations, so they are complied with to maintain order and to avoid penalties.

I explained that there are some strong views from some of the Salaf and others in this matter.^[10]

For example, that some of the Salaf held that to merely interpret the ḥadīth of keeping the sick away from the healthy to mean fear of contagion, is the most evil interpretation of the text, and is to affirm and promote the very omens the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) came to put an end to.

I said that if those who hold this view were present today, and saw people doing strange things, like fearing disease-free healthy people, and keeping six-feet apart from each other (which is admittedly made-up and baseless), they would not hesitate to call this madness and likewise, consider it minor shirk. So I explained there are views like this, and a person is perfectly entitled to hold them.

Likewise, even those who affirm contagion, they explain that it is an arena in which there can be exaggeration and mimicking the ways of the people of disbelief and that there are boundaries and limits to genuine precaution, otherwise, we enter into the realm of whispers, omens and superstition. From such scholars are Shaykh al-Albānī, Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī and Sulaymān bin Ḥamdān.

This is especially so when certain affairs are made ways and means when they are not ways and means, but simply manifestations of exaggeration, and mere presumptions and inventions, devoid of evidence, with the sole purpose of fearmongering and generating anxiety in order to control and manipulate behaviours.

Further, the scholars have provided sufficient clarification in this matter in terms of general principles which are easily applied to verified factual realities.

Because I explained these affairs with the knowledge and understanding of certain scholars, and application of sound principles which they mention, these people distorted my speech and accused me of accusing the rulers and scholars of shirk!

However, I had clearly explained that these are affairs which most nations implemented, and that every nation, naturally wants their country to be perceived as safe for economic and political reasons.

Thus, the rulers have to be tactful on the world stage, and this is part of al-siyāsah al-sharʿiyyah, which is their domain. Hence, we should not revile them or attack them, but that we, as individuals and subjects, who are affected by these complex set of events and from whom certain behaviours are demanded, have to deal with this situation by keeping within the confines of the Sunnah, with precision and with wisdom.

Which means that irrespective of our personal views and convictions, in this difficult and complex situation, we should patiently obey the authorities, without believing anything that is proven to be false and devoid of evidence, and that if we show patience, Allāh will reward us for it, and that all of this should be seen as a trial for our sins, and we should not blame or attack the rulers for any difficulties or hardships suffered.

This was the nature of my discourse and was known and understood by everyone who spoke to me or read what I wrote.

8. DOUBT: I use Ṣūfīs of Mauritania as evidence

In September 2021, someone forwarded me an article which comprised some advice and some legal opinions regarding forced vaccination policies. It was published online and had been written by around twenty or so people who are taken as scholars in Mauritania.^[11]

I shared it with a limited number of people on Whatsapp, the point behind this being the same one I had been making since early 2020, which is that the nations of the world differ in terms of how they approached the Covid-19 pandemic, and even among Muslim countries, there were different approaches taken by its rulers and scholars.

For example, some countries like Pakistan rejected lockdowns very early on for economic reasons. So because there were some students saying that Muslims in the West should follow the health measures implemented in Saudi, such that we should social distance in our mosques and wear facemasks, even when we are not required to, then I had been explaining that there is no evidence to show that we must do that, and that there are different policies in different countries.

Further, that the rulers and those taken as scholars by the populations of Muslim countries, they have different views and approaches in this matter. Thus, it is not the case, that we choose just one country and insist that Muslim populations in other countries follow its policies and guidelines in relation to lockdowns, distancing, masks and vaccinations. This relates to the domain of authority that subjects are under in each nation.

So this document from Mauritania, was just an illustration of that point.

However, it is being used to say that I am returning to Ṣūfīs for evidence. For the information of the reader, I actually sent this document to the Mufti, Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and posed a question regarding it.

Hence, there is nothing in this, and it illustrates that these people are just nitpicking on trivial things to perhaps make up for the inability to justify the initial slanders that were spread, for which they have not provided any evidence at all. Rather, they have proven to be complete lies.

9. DOUBT: I trust the sayings of disbelieving doctors and specialists over Muslims

This is a very odd doubt to bring given that the entire pandemic, as well as the pseudoscientific basis of Darwinian virology, along with all the harsh lockdown measures and experimental vaccines were brought to us by the disbelievers, and by big pharma, big media and big tech, all of which are owned by the people of disbelief, comprising a weaponised commercial monopoly.

The entire pandemic machinery used for faking pandemics and selling injectable serums for billions in profits, belongs to the people of disbelief, from the People of the Book, Materialists, Darwinists, Malthusians and others, inclusive of all of their captured institutions, philanthrocapitalists, agents and spokesmen, such as Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci and others.

Indeed, such affairs have even been mentioned by the scholars of the Muslims, centuries ago, since these situations are not novel or without precedent. Abū al-Muḍhaffar al-Surramarriyy al-Ḥanbalī (d. 772H), from the students of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, wrote in his book, Shifāʾ al-Ālām:^[12]

So if there are among the non-Muslims, those who speak the truth and have evidence for what they say, then there is no reason to reject truth just because it comes from a non-Muslim. How then, when the realities are already explained for us, by our own Muslim scholars, centuries ago! Nor is this even an argument that can be used, as it is self-defeating. It can be reversed and used with greater right against the one who uses it.

Ibn al-Qayyim (رحمه الله) said:^[13]

Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn (رحمه الله) explained:^[14]

Elsewhere, Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn (رحمه الله) speaks of trust placed in a disbeliever or sinner who is known to be correct in his field, and he gives the example of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) employing ʿAbd Allāh bin Urayqiṭ, who was a pagan, as a guide, in a most dangerous situation.

The Meccan Pagans had offered a huge reward of two hundred camels to whoever brought the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) to them. This guide had a strong incentive to deliver the Messenger and Abu Bakr to them, yet he did not do so, indicating he was trusted, in addition to his expertise in the matter at hand.

The Shaykh then said:^[15]

Why is the speech of non-Muslim specialists—in which there is knowledge and concrete evidence that proves without any shadow of doubt, the harmful, destructive effects of lockdowns, social distancing, community masking, experimental mRNA injections and fraudulent PCR tests—not acceptable, when it was perfectly acceptable to take the speech of non-Muslims and their institutions regarding these things in the first place? And especially, now when the truth of all these things are admitted and have become common knowledge.

This is not a good argument to make.

Note: The social-media-posting accuser himself, as late as 2023, was still complaining while in Indonesia, in denial of concretely established realities, and accusing trustworthy Salafīs (many of whom are in medical fields) of lying when he said:^[16]

This, despite the fact that by early 2022, in just one year of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, there were more than a 1000 papers published in medical journals on the death and injury caused by these injection, and the affair had entered the law courts in many Western countries with people taking legal action. Further, in the post-marketing study done by Pfizer—which was force-released by legal action in early 2022, after Pfizer and the FDA tried to have half a million pages of clinical trial documents sealed for 75 years—there were 1223 post-injection deaths in just three months of the rollout till February 2021, and the document included 9 pages of over 1200 adverse side effects, many of them serious and life-long.

So all of this was imaginary, made-up, a lie, and one big “conspiracy theory”!

Further, we can use the same argument and say, “By you commenting on the issue of vaccines and making these claims, are you not speaking in a nāzilah issue yourself (according to your own particular understanding)?”

Likewise, declaring Muslim doctors, specialists and researchers in other lands to be sinful simply for doing their religious, professional and legal duty in those lands in giving genuine advice and informed consent regarding the vaccines, is that not also passing judgements in a nāzilah?

So why are you also commenting on these issues when they should be left, as you say, for the Major Scholars and official authorities for fatwā and when such irresponsible, non-state-approved fatwās may bring disrepute upon the government itself? So is this not delving into a nāzilah as well? In reality, what they accuse others of, through the slogans they use, they actually fall into themselves, indicating their inconsistency.

By Allāh’s decree and wisdom, the hand has been played, and the reality has been exposed.

10. DOUBT: I declare foolish the saying of the scholars that the Covid-19 injections are permissible

This is from the most evil and most blatant of their lies. I have never said any such thing, this is from the distortions and fabrications put online by the social media poster.

I questioned the practice of some people who were using fatāwās of scholars that speak of the permissibility of vaccination in general to attack and malign those who had reservations about the Covid-19 vaccines in particular (see: bin-baz-vaccine). I said that these general fatāwā of permissibility cannot be used to claim that taking these experimental injections is a religious obligation and that the one who does not do so, with valid grounds, is a sinner, and that such a person is “opposing the scholars”. So I questioned this line of argument.

During the Covid-19 injection rollout in early 2021, when deaths and injuries were surfacing, and when many European nations suspended one of the injections and doubts were raised about the others, I gave practical, pragmatic advice regarding taking these injections as explained above.

However, there were some people who, ignoring these realities, were using arguments such as “So and so scholar took the vaccine, are you saying he is ignorant?”, “Are you saying the scholars don’t know fiqh al-wāqiʿ”.

These are emotional arguments, not legislative or rational ones.

So I explained that according to the official state policy in Saudi Arabia, the injection is not actually obligatory to take, even though it would make your life a bit difficult, but it is not obligatory. Further, that the individual choice of a scholar in medical affairs is not a legislative proof for the obligation or correctness of a thing.

Then there were some bold fatwās that had appeared in 2021, as explained earlier, which were not the fatwās of the officially appointed committee of scholars for issuing fatwā in Saudi Arabia.

From them was the fatwā of Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī^[17] that it is obligatory to take the injection if you wish to mix in public and go to mosques and markets. Likewise, later in the year, there was another fatwā that those who advise with caution regarding the injections are sinful in the sight of Allāh. This was at a time when mountains of evidence had appeared in medical journals about deaths and injuries caused by the mRNA injections.

So I disputed these claims because they imposed burdens of sin upon people, with respect to questionable, rather, evidently harmful injections, something that was apparent in late 2020 and early 2021 for those who were familiar with these affairs after studying the clinical trial data. This is aside from the fact that these big pharma companies have a long history of criminal and fraudulent enterprises.

Also, there was a fear that if these people are promoting these ideas, that the officially appointed Major Scholars are the ones devising and dictating vaccination policies, then later on, when the death and destruction caused by these injections becomes clear, people will attack the scholars.

So I tried to advise these people through my writings and audios, in being careful and not to say things which are incorrect and misleading regarding the reality of the situation. Otherwise, a time will come when a person will come and say, “The Major Scholars said I am a sinner for not taking the vaccine, I took it and I was injured”, or “My mother was killed by the vaccine after the Major Scholars said it was obligatory” and speech like this.

So all of this has been distorted to mean that I declared the scholars, ignorant, and accused them of not knowing fiqh al-wāqiʿ and so on.

11. DOUBT: I say that health authorities of Muslim nations follow the World Health Organization

They are interpreting this as a revilement, when this is just a description of factual reality. All 194 signatories and participants to the International Health Regulations 2005 are legally bound by these regulations. This is said of all nations who are party to this treaty. This is why the same, uniform policies were observed all across the world.

I refer the reader to International Health Regulations 2005 information page on the WHO website, wherein it is stated:

I refer the reader also to page 59 of the regulations document (click for image) which lists all the nations, Muslim and non-Muslim.

The reason why I was pointing this out, not just in these audios, but more broadly in discussions in general, was to provide a defence and cover for the rulers of the Muslims, so that ignorant Muslims do not start attacking and reviling them.

In an official document for public consumption, this is what the Saudi Ministry of Health states:

The quote at the bottom of this page:

In other words, Muslim governments, as are governments of other nations, are party to an international framework. So as a nation because you entered a treaty, therefore, you abide by its terms. So in my voice note, I said the following:

The purpose behind this was to provide a defence for both the rulers and the scholars in relation to the harsh, controversial measures which turned out be without evidence, and brought much harm. This was along the lines: Do not attack the rulers, they are abiding by international agreements and may have other strategic considerations, have patience, do not blame them, but turn inward to your own souls. Likewise, do not ever say that the scholars are the ones who devised and imposed these harsh, disputed, controversial measures, they are free of this. Rather, they have only commanded with the Sunnah, which is obey the rulers. So this, way this is a two-line defence of the rulers and scholars.

Hence, it is said that the rulers of all nations are simply doing their duty, and they are required to implement certain measures laid down in the regulations as part of international cooperation.^[18]

So we should understand that and we should not revile the Muslim rulers for any hardships and difficulties. Further, that these difficulties and hardship should be seen as a trial from Allāh, so we should not point our fingers at the rulers, but to ourselves and our sins. This is something I said often and frequently, and I wrote about it, and this is well known.

Sadly, this description of factual reality has been interpreted by the shaykh and his expert bilingual Indian translators as a revilement, and they have misconstrued it:

Sadly, the shaykh, the social media poster, has entered himself into a riddle, a maze, in which he is finding it very hard to discover his way out. He is lost. It's not the kind of thing that shaykhs and scholars tend to do. And its worse, when you draw thousands of others into this same maze of confusion and compound ignorance.

It seems that some of these people invested so much in this issue (as a tool for pursuing their agendas) that it is now no longer about factual correctness and truth, but simply about finding any trivial reason to attack someone without any basis.

In short, if a Muslim nation itself tells the world, publicly, on its own official website, that they implemented WHO guidelines, and you convey that information as a matter of fact, in order to shield Muslim rulers from attack by the Ḥizbīs, to explain that they are simply abiding by prior agreements, they claim that you have “entered the nawāzil” and preceded the rulers and scholars. So I would like evidence showing how this amounts to “entering the nawāzil”. How does providing constructive, rational and intelligible defences, using readily available, public knowledge, from the rulers themselves, for protection of Muslim rulers amount to “entering the nawāzil”?

12. DOUBT: I Delved Into or Gave Fatwā in Nawāzil (Major Events)

The doubt in this matter stems from the fact that they use the word nāzilah in a very ambiguous manner and never explain exactly what defines or enters into a nāzilah, such that there is clarity in the matter.

The word “nāwāzil” is broad and refers to various types of crises, emergencies, events and situations, and they may have a relation to fiqh issues or they may not. In all of these situations, it is the rulers, their authorities, and the scholars, when fiqh rulings are required, who work together in the issue at hand. For example, when there is a war, a famine, a disaster such as a bridge collapse, or an economic downturn, when there is a flood, or some other type of emergency. So these events have elements that are just considered from the worldly aspect and elements which relate to fiqh and legislative rulings.

There are a variety of issues here:

These affairs return to the Major Scholars.

There was never any dispute about this. And here, if anyone wants to advise the rulers, then he follows the legislated routes, something which I did myself.

Hence, whenever a truth is firmly and irrefutably established in these matters it is obligatory upon all people to accept it, no matter who it is or what his status, just as in religious affairs, when a truth becomes established, it is obligatory upon all people to accept it. For example, that the Mawlid celebration has no evidence whatosever and is an innovation, or that a particular ḥadīth is proven to be weak or fabricated, or that the negation of the Divine Attributes is falsehood and misguidance and returns back to the influence of Greek Philosophy. These are universal affairs in religion which are above any ruler, scholar or jurist.

Everyone is obliged to accept the truth in these affairs, and his status as a ruler, judge, jurist or scholar does not confer him any special privileges in this respect, such that he can override the truth because of his status.

In the same way, there are universal affairs in matters of the world, in science and medicine among other fields, and when they become concretely established through evidence (no matter who or how many people bring it), then all people are obligated to accept it. Now, whether that actually happens or not is another matter, and is tied to other affairs from Allāh’s decree, just as in the religious matters, just because the truth of a thing is known and established, it does not mean that everyone is going to follow it, that returns to other factors, and wisdoms in Allāh’s decree.

Given the above, it is unclear how people who speak and write in the domain of their own field or expertise, in the worldly sciences, are somehow “entering into the nawāzil”. This has never been known historically, that doctors, pharmacists, researchers and the likes, merely for engaging in the sphere of activity in their own domain of expertise, are accused of rebelling against the scholars.

It is unclear how this is “entering into the nawāzil”, when all that is happening is that verification is being made of the basis of already-existing rulings from scholars that are perfectly legitimate to hold in the subject matter.

So what they have done is to confuse the third, fourth and fifth with the first and second, mixing everything together, while not clearly defining what is a “nāzilah”.

Note: This group is trying to find fault with me for making use of a published work/study on the jurisprudence of the nawāzil, saying that it was authored by a ḥizbī etc. However, as that is the only extensive work on the subject that I was aware of at the time, it is from academic integrity that I make mention of the source. See further below.

13. DOUBT: I revile the Arabs in their genus

In the short 8 minute voice note, I mentioned, incidental to the discussion, that the Gulf Arabs, due to oil wealth, were catapulted into modern civilisation with rapid development, and had to rely heavily on foreign expertise. That they have a Western food culture and consequently, Western model of medicine. This is just a worldly observation, and relates to a specific time-period.

Some people have distorted this to mean that I was intending the scholars. This is absolutely not true at all, and I have addressed this earlier.

Likewise, others have claimed this is a revilement of the Arabs as a genus. However, this is not true either, as I am speaking about a time-restricted matter in contemporary history. I addressed the issue in more detail in this article which can be referred to in this article in which I establish the virtue of the Arabs, and its nature:

There can be found in the speech of the scholars, such as Shaykh al-Albānī for example, similar types of discussion regarding the virtue of the Arabs and its nature:

14. DOUBT: I busy the youth and speak about these affairs day and night

There is no truth to this claim, and I had and have many preoccupations other than just writing on this subject matter, which include affairs of daʿwah, lessons, online and offline publishing, as well as worldly responsibilities and pursuits. This perception is only in the eye of the beholders because perhaps they have an axe to grind. There is nothing of knowledge to address in this doubt, so we can just leave it at that.

15. DOUBT: I make walāʾ and barāʾ around these issues

This is another false claim. My writings were largely a response to erroneous claims that were spread by certain students of knowledge, the exaggerations they were falling into, and wrongly ascribing things to some of the people of knowledge.

I did not force anyone to accept my views, but I did discuss various affairs, religious, scientific and medical, with knowledge and evidence, as part of replying to these erroneous claims. It appears that they were unable to respond in substance to the knowledge and evidences presented, and hence took to other means.

As for the claim of the one who says that he was ostracized and his invitations to conferences stopped merely because of his position on Covid-19, then he is just plain lying, and sadly, there are those who believe his lies.

It is unclear why these types of people wanted to prevent people from declaring their conviction and certainty in the speech of the truthful and believed (صلى الله عليه وسلم), who declared: (لا عدوى) “There is no contagion”, and (لا يعدي شيئ شيئا)“Nothing passes what it has (of illness) to another” something which is held on to by many scholars from the Salaf to this day of ours, and the truth of which is established empirically in their view:

So when the right to hold a legitimate view is defended against false claims and intimidation, this does not amount to loyalty and enmity (walāʾ and barāʾ) around the issue. Rather, it is nothing more than asserting a legitimate viewpoint (both religious and worldly) and correcting faulty understandings regarding it.

These are affairs which are differed over, discussed and disputed, they are ongoing and ultimately, return to evidence. And all of it is part of the healthy discussion and debate which allow worldly realities to be uncovered and settled, once evidence that accords with truth is established.^[19]

16. DOUBT: I just want to show I am right and the scholars are wrong

As the reader will have noticed by now, these doubts just get more and more absurd, there is nothing of any substance in them and they are not knowledge-based. They appear to be emotional and frustrated responses in the wider context of the world’s realisation that the Covid-19 pandemic response was indeed the biggest medical and financial scam in world history made possible through a weaponised and exaggerated concept of contagion and that the vaccine rollout was “a pump and dump scheme” enabled by a complex pandemic machinery that has been developed and installed over the past century.

Every last detail of this is now known. Muslim scholars in the past have specifically spoken about these types of affairs—the weaponisation of medicine and likewise, contagion—and warned against them.

Alḥamdulillāh, I return to, follow, and support the scholars and and take from their views and statements which are evidence based and accord with the realities. So to say that I want to prove myself right and the scholars to be wrong is just an absurd thing to say. I have speech of scholars for every knowledge-based viewpoint that I am upon in these affairs.

I love and respect all of these scholars. I defended them and tried to protect them from the lies and exaggerations that certain people were trying to ascribe to them, for fear that this may harm them in the future.

17. Doubt: I Refer to Surūrīs and Ashʿarīs

Having been unable to justify the slanders and fabrications, and opposing the way of Ahl al-Sunnah in dealing with any alleged or actual errors of Ahl al-Sunnah, the social media poster, is using his proxies to find other issues to throw into the mix, in order to advance what appears to be an agenda of tabdīʿ and expelling me from Ahl al-Sunnah. It is difficult to interpret his statements, activities and posts otherwise.

As for the source for the article on the nāzilah, then that is a comprehensive study I found on the subject, and it is from academic honesty to refer to the source work. Further, they have not shown what is wrong in the article, only that I relied upon the work.

They claimed the author was an Ashʿarī but he is a teacher in Uṣūl al-Fiqh in the Faculty of Sharīʿah in the Islāmic University of Madīnah, and his works do not indicate that he is an Ashʿarī at all.

In any case, as a worst-case scenario, let's say he was an Ashʿarī, it would be possible for me to defend this by returning to the speech of the scholars, such as Shaykh al-Albānī (رحمه الله) for example, who said using a work in which a person who is not upon the Salafi manhaj and does not call to his innovation in the work, but which contains correct information, there is no harm in this and is not inviting to his way.^[21]

That argument could be made to respond to this doubt.

But if they want to use this against me, assuming they were truthful and not liars, about the author being an Ashʿarī, then I can simply say: I should not have used these sources, I was mistaken in doing so. And in that case, raising this issue would not have helped them in anything.

It does not help them in having to answer for the lies and distortions that they spread on social media, and the fact that they did not follow the way of the scholars in dealing with alleged or actual errors of a Salafi known for defence of Tawḥīd, Sunnah and scholars.

And in fact, all it reveals is that their intention is to declare me misguided, make tabdīʿ of me, and therefore, expel me from Ahl al-Sunnah.

18. Doubt: “Who from the scholars is saying what I am saying?”

This represents confused and muddled thinking, very sadly, promoted by particular students here in the West. It would be understandable if ordinary people came out with these types of things, but it’s sad that it is coming from students.

• Update: 5 May 2025 Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Luḥaydān: ‘Swine Flu’ Does Not Exist and Is Made Up for Commercial Objectives
• Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Luḥaydān on the Coronavirus

The first thing is to ask them: Do you even know what I am actually saying and what my position is? Something I have repeated over and over since early 2020? “O, sorry, no I have not read anything, and I was strongly advised not to. But I just heard that you hate the scholars and want to topple them.” In that case, why do you even have an opinion which you are posting to social media? Your excuse belies your action.

The second thing is that they are confusing between the domain of scholars and the domain of specialists in worldly fields, such as medicine, in which scholars, when asked regarding a ruling, have to rely upon the knowledge and opinions of specialists, if they themselves do not have any prior knowledge regarding it.

The discussions and debates of medicine that take place among mankind, the scholars have no concern with them at all, unless a ruling is required, or unless a scholar, in his private capacity, has an interest in the affairs of medicine. This is what the scholars themselves say.

An Illustration:

Thus, if I say that the PCR “test” is not a diagnostic tool (to identify the alleged cause of a disease) and using it to generate “cases” is fraudulent, no intelligent person says: “Who from the scholars is saying what you are saying?” This is purely a scientific discussion. However, if we need a ruling regarding this matter, or it pertains to the Sharīʿah in one way or another, then we go to a scholar for a ruling.

For example: “Ya Shaykh, I have tested positive through this test, but it is proven that the test is meaningless and is being used unscientifically, this is admitted. However, I am unable to leave my house due to health measures requiring I stay at home. But my mother needs my assistance, without which she will suffer harm. Am I allowed to leave my house for this purpose? And am I sinful for doing so?” This could be in a Muslim or non-Muslim country, which may mean that he disobeys the ruler.

So here there is a ruling related to the PCR test, where a person wants to know whether an action is allowed or not and whether it entails sin or not. Here, a person goes to a scholar and the scholar will make consideration and give a fatwā on the basis of the information presented, or knowledge he may already have in the matter, or he will consult with a specialist for verification, or give a conditional answer.

19. DOUBT: You opposed the verse (4:83-) regarding affairs of security and fear.

I called to acting upon this verse with its correct understanding and application as I made clear during 2020, and early 2021 and beyond (see image from the document, “A Clarification of Doubts and Rumours”, January 2021, p. 4).

I found fault with those misusing this verse as a shield to conceal their lack of understanding, speaking without knowledge in matters they do not understand (worldly or religious) and ascribing to Allāh (عز وجل), His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and scholars what they did not say and then using this verse as a weapon to silence those who point out their errors and exaggerations, which emanate from unchecked zeal and lack of understanding.

These people tried to use this verse in relation to information about a public worldwide event whose every detail is pretty much in the public domain, in the media, on government websites, in medical journals and which is spoken of by millions of doctors, professionals, researchers and scientists, and is on television networks all over the world and all over social media. Every aspect of it is is researched and discussed in medical and scientific journals, and is all in the public domain.

Further, each nation had its own domain of information, with respect to which its authorities are at liberty to divulge in the way they see fit. However, that does not extend to other countries, or to the whole world, as this information space is not the exclusive domain of just one country, but is worldwide and open.

So they did not grasp these things, and upon their confusion, were misapplying verses to complex situations, which they were unable to perceive and grasp.

As this was a complex, multi-layered event in which there are different religious and worldly viewpoints, it means that the truth is not black and white, but truth exists in different contexts, which when we understand things properly, there is really no conflict, and everything can be reconciled through the principles of our religion.

To illustrate this, lets show those who acted upon this verse, from the numerous angles and perspectives it can be acted upon, based upon its causes of revelation, and its explanation as has preceded.

So they include:

01  Those who enjoined obedience to the rulers and said that in each country, the Muslims refer back to their authorities and respect their decisions and policies and abide by them, and they are the scholars, such as the Muftī, Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, other scholars and those besides them. So they are implementing this verse from a perspective.

02  Those who said that as this is an event in which there is much differing from the religious and worldly point of view (contagion, health measures, vaccines), that we should respect the ijtihāds of the rulers of each nation, as they are the ones with authority, but no one is obligated to accept knowledge-based viewpoints (religious or worldly) against their convictions. this is a correct way to apply the verse to the factual reality that each nation has its own domain of authority, health specialists, and in Muslim countries, those who are taken as scholars by the people.

03  Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Luḥaydān, who questioned the veracity of the claims of the disbelievers, did not distance, or mask, or take any injections. This is a correct application of the verse as it relates to verification, in this case, casting doubt upon the speech of those who cannot be trusted, from the People of Disbelief.

04  Shaykh Ṣaliḥ al-Fawzān, who advised against unwarranted fear, but combined it with obedience to the authorities. So he combined more than one meaning of the verse to a situation, he relieved fear by encouraging hope, strength and reliance, and then indicated the principle that when authorities issue restrictions, that they are followed.

05  Shaykh ʿUbayd al-Jābirī, who, affirming that social distancing of six-feet was not done by the Salaf despite repeat epidemics, advised with obedience to the rulers, nevertheless. So he combined verification in a knowledge-based matter (social distancing of six-feet is unknown to the Muslims) but said the affair is a matter of obedience to the ruler in his ijtihād.

06  Those who made verification about the reality of the alleged virus, and the true nature of the novel disease and explained that it has a 99.5% survival rate minimum for most of the world's population, and thus, not worth worrying about.

This was clearly and expicitly stated by health ministers of leading and powerful Western nations, before the media frenzy kicked in and manipulated people’s feelings for the purposes of selling injections. This media being owned by the same money-power that owns big pharma.

07  Those who made verification about the PCR “test”, upon which the entire illusion of a pandemic rests, and explained that it is being used fraudulently, having no diagnostic value at all. That it was being used to rebrand deaths from other causes and to generate millions of “asymptomatic carriers” in order to create the illusion of the “spread” of an imaginary virus and its alleged Darwinian variants that exist only as a fabricated, fictional, genetic sequences in computer software programs.

08  Those who made verification about the claim of “safe and effective” regarding the experimental injections, going directly to the clinical trial data and internal FDA presentations as early as October 2020, and, by way of religious obligation, gave sincere advice to Muslims, by communicationg risks verus benefits, for protection of their lives and health, and in accordance with their religious, legal and professional obligations, alongside their knowledge and totally justified suspicion due to prior similar scams, such as the 2009 Swine Flu Scam.

09  Those who made verification of the unscientific nature of certain measures (locking people down, distancing and masking policies), which were already known and established, in past research, before 2020, to be ineffective and harmful, and who said, obey the rulers and health authorities nevertheless, but do not believe in such exaggerations (in relation to contagion), as they perpetuate unwarranted fear and anxiety, but fear Allāh and look inwardly at your own sins during these hardships and trials.

10  Those who spread calm and tranquility and ease by making clear, from data, that this disease (overwhelmingly a rebranding of the flu and pneumonia) is fatal only to the very elderly who also suffer from multiple chronic illnesses, and those who are extremely unhealthy with obesity and bad lifestyles. This is what all the facts showed consistently, from the beginning, in Northern Italy, in February and March 2020.

So these are the ones are the ones who made istinbāṭ, making the proper derivation, just like ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) made proper verification regarding the rumour, and then aptly conveyed the verified knowledge, because it was a matter of public interest and the correct information put an end to improper mood and sentiment based on false information, exaggeration, and in fact, what turned out to be outright lies.

As for the rulers of nations, then they differed in terms of how they responded.

• Some recognised the WHO-led pandemic response was built on PCR test fraud, so they kicked out the WHO and did not participate. This is what John Magafuli, the Tanzanian president did. He refused to allow Covid-19 injections into the country, and there was subsequently a media onslaught against him. There was no pandemic in Tanzania and people just went on with life, treating seasonal illnesses with their usual natural remedies.
• Others, took a very lax approach, without harsh measures, and they did very well (Sweden, US states). Pakistan rejected lockdowns early on, due to their economic devastation.
• And the rest, followed the WHO guidelines to varying degrees of severity, and this included most Muslim nations.

Now we obviously support the Muslim rulers and the authorities, and hear and obey them in their choices and decisions, and give advice through legislated means and channels, we are in complete agreement regarding that and the fact that they acted with good intentions.

However, there are wider issues, that simply reflect the state of the ummah in general, from them is the heavy reliance on the people of disbelief in the affair of medicine (and in science in general), and this is not a new thing, but something scholars of old have already pointed out, as it has happened in the past. So these events cannot be divorced from these factual realties, and all we can do, as did scholars of the past, is to make complaint and supplication to Allāh for rectification and betterment of these affairs.

In short, I called for the correct application of this verse, and acknowledged that the affair returns to the rulers and scholars of every land, and that their views, choices and decisions should be respected.

20. DOUBT: I declare scholars wrong, only a scholar can declare another scholar wrong.

Sadly, these types of statements emanate from lack of awareness of my views, and the people making these statements have not really taken much effort to investigate and verify.

Firstly, I did not declare scholars wrong, in the way they understand, I said there are different views regarding contagion from both a religious and worldly point of view, and therefore different approaches that can be taken based on these views. That the scholars have done the right thing by a) explaining the measures that are stated in the texts, b) calling for obedience to the rulers in his ijtihād in relation to measures that are not stated, but are novel, disputed and controversial. I called to this myself.

Further, some Muslim nations rejected lockdowns, such as Pakistan. They were actually correct in doing so. And other nations rejected the entire pandemic, seeing through it as a scam based on fraudulent misuse of PCR tests. And other contries did not take a strict approach, such as Sweden and numerous US states. They made the right decisions.

As this is a matter of ijtihād in which nations differed, you cannot say here, just because we deem certain nations to have done what was more correct and backed by the actual science, and other nations made choices which turned out to be wrong, that we have reviled anyone. Further, the rulers and scholars of the Muslims are rewarded for their ijtihāds in all circumstances, twice or just once.

However, discussing these measures from a scientific and medical point of view does not amount to “declaring the scholars wrong”. Once again, this just shows the confusion that is with these people.

Secondly, for the sake of argument, lets just run along with this for now, and let’s say I did declare scholars wrong in the way they seem to (wrongly) understand, which is not the case, as I never spoke of the scholars like that, in the sense they try to portray.

So it can be said, in the matter of contagion for example, in reality, Ibn Khuzaymah (رحمه الله) declared those scholars wrong who affirmed the contagion that the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) explicitly negated. That was not me, but an Imām of Tawḥīd and Sunnah. Likewise, Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim bin Sallām (رحمه الله) declared the affirmation of contagion to be promotion of the very omens that Prophetic guidance came to put an end to.

And Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (رحمه الله) said:

If that is so, where does that leave social distancing of six-feet and taking vaccines to prevent contagion? This is the view of Shaykh Muqbil (رحمه الله) as well, as he is of the view that vaccines are not taken for preventing contagion, as it is negated. This entails that those scholars, if there are any, who hold a contrary view, permitting vaccines for preventing contagion, are wrong, according to the Shaykh.

Ibn Ḥajar (رحمه الله) rejected the fatwā of scholars who advised not to visit those sick with the plague, relying upon testimony of doctors, and said their testimony should be rejected, as it entails abandonment of the rights of a Muslim.

And there are others who have even harsher words.

Further, I can also say that the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) declared them wrong because he said: “Nothing transmits (its illness) to anything else”, which is of course a factually true statement from the truthful and believed, as disease states are properties of bodies, they are not transmitted from one entity to the next, and contagion has never been proved through controlled experiments strictly following the scientific method. Disease states are freshly created in each entity through the sum of their causes and event-chains.

So saying, “So and so passed his illness to so and so”, even if you add, “but by Allāh’s will and decree”, then this does not make it true—any more than saying, “We we given the rain by the stars, but through Allāh’s will”—since nobody passes his state of illness to anyone else in the first place. It is always freshly created, and comprises a separate action of Allāh every time. In this, lies the complete and total affirmation of His Rubūbiyyah, without diluting it by invoking the negated contagion and the unnecessary intellectual and mental baggage which this concept brings.

So we can say: Why you are declaring the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) wrong by invoking scholars, who contradict his clear, unequivocal speech? This can be rightly said. This is a totally legitimate viewpoint. Rather, It can be justifiably said: “Why are you taking the path of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd al-Muʿtazilī and placing the pseudosciences of the disbelievers over and above the Prophetic judgement (قضاء), as Companions such as ʿAbd Allāh bin ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) described it?”

This would be a completely legitimate line of reasoning based on both religious and worldly evidence. But I and others have never said such a thing, because we understand there are views.

This is alongside our understanding that we are all agreed, that irrespective of our views, we should obey the authorities to maintain order and that we return to the scholars for fatāwā in relation to affairs of worship, dealings and rights that are affected by the pandemic measures.

In short, I have always returned back to scholars, in all of these issues, walḥamdulillāh, and I take the truth from whichever scholar speaks it.

The issue is only with those who bully and intimidate others with their half-baked knowledge and lack of understanding in these affairs, who make false claims and then attribute these claims to the Major Scholars and who demand that everyone has to accept and operate upon this same confusion and faulty understanding.

21. DOUBT: Are You Pleased With Returning to The Major Scholars?

Yes, we are prepared to go to the Major Scholars, and already did.

Let us go to the Senior Scholars—among who are Muftī, Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl al-Shaykh, Shaykh al-Fawzān and Shaykh ʿAbd al-Muḥsin—and ask the following questions, so that the dispute between us is resolved:

01  Was taking the Covid-19 injection made obligatory by the Saudi government or health authority, or a recommendation only? And was a personal sinful for not taking it?

02  The Muslim doctors, specialists and researchers who, due to clear evidence (such as suspension of certain injections in European nations due to death and injury)—in accordance with their religious, legal and professional obligations in their own lands—advise with caution against Covid-19 injections, are they sinful, and guilty of following the ways of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd al-Muʿtazilī towards the scholars, and of seeking fame and fortune?

Is this the official fatwā of the Committee of Senior Scholars? Is this considered giving fatwā in nawāzil concerning the lives, honours and reputations of Muslims in other lands, given that thousands may have taken experimental injections on this basis of this fatwā and subsequently died or became injured, or harmed?

03  Does the political and health authority of Saudi Arabia, whether in an epidemic or not, extend to Muslims and Muslim doctors in other lands, such that they are bound by their views, policies and regulations in the affairs of medicine in which mankind has differed?

04  Have state authorities allowed shaykhs to speak about Muslim doctors, and professionals in other lands, accuse them of lying, question their integrity and sincerity, and ascribe heresy to them, merely due to their views in the affairs of medicine, and for giving sincere advice to Muslims in their lands, within the bounds of the law of the land, and according to their genuine and sincere convictions in permitted areas of differing?

05  Is the action of a scholar in choosing to take a medical intervention, a legislative proof for that intervention, or is just his personal choice in a permissible affair? And can his action be used to accuse others of opposing that scholar, or opposing the Sunnah?

These are just some sample questions, many more could be presented. However, the point here being that those who repeat the slogan, “return to the scholars”, we have to ask them, which of the Major Scholars did you yourself return to in the first place before speaking as if you are official spokesmen, on the world stage, for the Saudi state—may Allāh protect it—and on social media?

So let’s go to the Major Scholars now… I already did that in 2021 and 2022 with the same type of questions!

Notification:

IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED here again, that there are indeed mashāyikh who have said that anyone who is qualified and knows the reality regarding Covid-19 and the vaccines, then it is wājib (obligatory) upon them to explain this reality for the benefit of the Muslims.

So, with the greatest of respect, this idea promoted by one small band of vocal people, demanding that the whole world return back to just one or two shaykhs who are given the role of playing judge and jury over Muslims in other lands in these issues, while hindering them from doing their legislative and professional duty in saving people from potential death and injury, by giving them pragmatic advice based on concrete evidence and factual reality, is unbefitting.

Especially given that they are not the officially appointed state scholars who have been appointed by the rulers to speak about these affairs, especially when their pronouncements may bring disrepute to the Saudi authorities.

Conclusion

The original accusations made against me and posted online in September 2024 included the following, that I say:

These were either fabrications and lies, or they were distortions, or they were based on ambiguous statements, which were isolated and given the worst possible meaning and intent. By spreading these accusations on social media based on a private voice note is not from the upright Salafī methodology. Rather, it resembles the oppressive methodology of the Ḥaddādiyyah, it resembles the ways of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, al-Baḥrainī, al-Ḥajūrī and the author of the last fitnah during 2016-2018. The one who posted these accusations should be very familiar with that, and should therefore, be showing some humility.

I am free and innocent of these most evil interpretations and insinuations.

Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said:^[22]

Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (حفظه الله) said:^[23]

This entire episode comprises numerous violations of the Salafī methodology and is indicative of other motives and agendas at play. See Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī’s valuable advice and insights from previous fitnahs involving such violations.

This is why Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (حفظه الله) said, when Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī accused Salafis of being Ḥaddādiyyah (and they are the ones who desire to topple the scholars in truth):^[24]

As for those who have heard these doubts and have been affected by them and said bad words, out of love and jealousy for the scholars, I have no issue with them, may Allāh reward them for their sincerity.

As for this small band of people, those who caused these problems with their social media posts and their students and helpers who propagated them, I ask Allāh (عز وجل) to protect others from their evil and to guide them.

Their tactic is to bombard a person with so many charges and accusations, in succession, with lots of posts, hoping to create a generalised picture of deviation that will stick in the minds of the audience, who do not have the means, resources and time to scrutinize everything. This is their strategy, but I don't think most people are really buying it, alḥamdulilllāh, at least not in the English-speaking world where people have access to clarifications.

Closing Note

In summary, some people have spread allegations against me on social media based on private voice notes, a matter that could have been handled privately. Their approach, which grossly violates the Salafī methodology, proves that they have motives and agendas, emanating from hatred, and that they do not operate with good will.

They took a private audio of mine from four years ago, took some ambiguous parts, which can be misunderstood if you look at them with evil opinion, and can be given the worst possible meaning and interpretation, something which I never intended or crossed my mind, ever, and concocted a dozen lies out of them.

Despite harbouring this malice, and having this evil opinion towards me for at least a year prior, they never once got in touch with me to ask for clarification, or to even notify me in the first place. Then, all of a sudden, they broadcast it on social media to tens of thousands of followers.

To this day, they are intent on drawing Salafīs into their web of deceit and they are even willing to split Salafīs over it.

I have no problem with anyone pointing out errors, so long as they are actual errors in the first place, and so long as it is done with evidence, and in order to make truth known for the benefit of people, which includes myself. Such endeavours can only be met with gratitude.

This is because we are fallible men, prone to inadvertent errors and slips, and no one is free of them, hence we supplicate to Allāh to overlook our errors and forgetfulness. (2:286-).

A seeker of truth never has anything to fear, and when he knows he is only interested in the truth, he cares not what the people say, and enjoys certainty and inner tranquility because of that. A truthful person can never be a coward.

I make it clear that I traverse upon the Salafi manhaj and that I love and respect the Major Scholars of this ummah— especially those whose works and writings have aided the Salafī daʿwah in the West—and that I defend them, with Allāh’s aid and tawfīq, and they are:

• Shaykh ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz bin Bāz (رحمه الله)
• Shaykh ʿAllāmah Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī (رحمه الله)
• Shaykh ʿAllāmah Ibn ʿUthaymīn (رحمه الله)
• Shaykh ʿAllāmah Rabīʿ bin Hādī (حفظه الله)
• Shaykh ʿAllāmah Muqbil bin Hādi al-Wadiʿī (رحمه الله)
• Shaykh ʿAllāmah Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān (حفظه الله)
• Shaykh ʿAllāmah Aḥmad al-Najmī (رحمه الله)
• Shaykh ʿAllāmah Zayd al-Madkhalī (رحمه الله)
• Shaykh ʿAllāmah Ṣāliḥ al-Luḥaydān (رحمه الله)
• Shaykh ʿAllāmah ʿAbd Allāh al-Ghudayān (رحمه الله)
• Shaykh ʿAllāmah ʿUbayd al-Jābirī (رحمه الله).

May Allāh guide us to what He loves and is pleased with and we ask Allāh for safety.

Footnotes