Background

During the Swine Flu Scam of 2009 I published an article on the subject matter of contagion in which I outlined the view of its affirmation, the view of its negation and some cautionary words against the exaggeration of the disbelievers in the matter of viruses which comprises fearmongering and speech that entails minor shirk due to giving their imaginary in silico^[2] viruses special powers and abilities. It turned out that the corrupt WHO (World Health Organisation) had colluded with big pharma to fake a pandemic in order to sell vaccines. The whole thing collapsed within a year and a scandal erupted.

A few dozen people died in Europe and many suffered neurological damage (guillain-barré syndrome) from the snake-oil injections. The injections were suspended and court cases were filed leading to millions in compensation to the injured.

Then in February 2020, at the beginnings of the Covid-19 Pandemic Scam—the greatest medical and financial scam in history—I republished the same article in PDF format.

Shortly after, when discussions about the subject matter began to take place, some students spoke on this subject. They seemed unhappy that the no contagion view should be discussed or even mentioned at all. Some of them actually intimidated others for abandoning the contagionist view and holding this view of negation, due to strong evidences. However, in pursuit of this intolerant path, they fell into errors, made false claims, misled people in the subject matter, and committed academic crimes.

So that these errors do not remain propagated without correction, and to put the record straight, these errors will be briefly addressed in this article.

False, Erroneous and Exaggerated Claims

From them:

• That there is practically a consensus on contagion among the senior scholars of today and using this claim as a means of silencing and belittling the other view of negation and its adherents, and allowing the impression to arise that such people are "opposing the scholars" and in essence, blameworthy.
• Promotion of the idea that the negation of contagion is a literalist (Ḍhāhirī) viewpoint of Ibn Ḥazm, and leaving people to think that the negators are Ḍhāhirīs.
• That the negation of contagion involves “difficult philosophy” and is a “weak and disproven opinion”, built upon “flawed logic” and comprises a “difficult and burdensome explanation” (see here), thereby giving the impression to people that adherents of this view are opposing texts through philosophy.

Response

These claims can be addressed briefly and concisely with the following points:

01  CLAIM: PRACTICALLY A CONSENSUS.

Students of knowledge who have passed through Islāmic institutions, whether in Makkah or Madīnah ought to have been introduced to the issue of contagion from two different subject areas. First, from the subject matter of reconciling apparently contradictory ḥadīths (mukhtalaf al-ḥadīth, muskhil al-āthār, etc.). Second, from the subject matter of Tawḥīd, in the study of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd and its explanation. In the books dealing with these two subjects, all the various views are provided.

As such, the student of knowledge should know that this is an accepted matter of historical differing. Hence to make a bold claim of practical consensus and to invoke it as an argument to bolster one view and dismiss the other view, instead of an objective discussion and analysis of each view and the merit and coherence therein or absence thereof, is from ignorance. This type of ignorance should not emanate from a competent, serious student of knowledge who understands how to conduct research in an issue.

Further, given that in these books, reference is clearly made to the Salaf, such as Imām Mālik, Abū ʿUbayd, Imām Aḥmad and those after them, and they are preceded by Companions such as ʿAbd Allāh bin ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه), then it is from gross negligence to fail to mention these great scholars in your compilation, while stating openly:^[3]

Thus, academic integrity demands that you faithfully convey all the material facts that pertain to the matter, which in this case would be the plentiful statements of scholars from the era of the Salaf to this day of ours on the negation of contagion, which you would no doubt have been exposed to had you truly studied the aforementioned types of books. Saying one thing, and doing another, does not represent academic integrity in the matter at hand.

Hence, to start with scholars from the 7th century hijrah and neglect everyone before is a sign of poor research, or perhaps it may reflect bigotry to a view through wilful neglect.

So what happened to the clear statements of:

• ʿAbd Allāh bin ʿUmar (d. 74H) (رضي الله عنه)
• Imām Mālik (d. 179H) and Imām Aḥmad (d. 241H) (see here)
• Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim bin Sallām (d. 224H) (see here)
• Imām al-Ṭabarī (d. 310H) (see here)
• Imām Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311H) (see here)
• Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321H) (see here)
• Abū Bakr al-Jassās (d. 370H) (see here)
• Abu Sulaymān al-Khaṭṭābī (d. 388H) (see here)
• Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463H) see here)
• Imām al-Baghawī (d. 516H)
• Imām al-Qurṭubī (d. 671H) (see here)
• Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852H) (see here)
• Shaykh al-Ḥāfiḍh al-Ḥakamī (d. 1377H)
• Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī (d. 1416H)
• Shaykh Muḥammad Ādam al-Ityūbī (d. 1442H) (see here)
• Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Luḥaydān (d. 1443H)

In short, making a claim of presenting the understanding of the Salaf (meaning, quoting from them), while failing to mention anyone before the 7th century hijrah, let alone anyone from the Salaf, is gross neglect.

Further, to argue by a claimed practical contemporary consensus on a matter that is known to be one of historical differing shows lack of comprehension. If a student of knowledge has passed through an Islāmic institution such as al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah in Madīnah, then in both the fields of ḥadīth and creed (Tawḥīd), he would have come across this subject and would know that this is a matter of differing.

In addition, what point could you possibly be making through these claims and writings, and what is your objective, when the person you are primarily addressing had already written on the subject matter (in May 2009 and February 2020) and given fair consideration and presentation to the various views and understandings?

02  CLAIM: A ḌHĀHIRĪ VIEWPOINT.

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymīn (رحمه الله) was asked a question about the view of Ibn Ḥajar regarding contagion. He misheard the questioner and thought he said “Ibn Ḥazm”. In the course of his answer, while supporting the contagionist view, the Shaykh mentioned that Ibn Ḥazm is a Ḍhāhirī, that he takes things upon the apparent.^[4]

A graduate of Madīnah University from the United Kingdom tweeted a partial translation of this particular audio but did not do justice to the issue. This is because later in the audio the misunderstanding about who was intended by the questioner (Ibn Ḥajar) was cleared.

There are a number of issues to address here. First, standards of research and what they require from you. Second, the view of Ibn Ḥazm itself. Third, the content of the statement of Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn.

The First: Standards of research require you to verify things and to listen to recordings to their completion, especially when they are only five minutes or less in length. The questioner made mention of Ibn Ḥajar, not Ibn Ḥazm, and Ibn Ḥajar is not a Ḍhāhirī. Rather, he brought all the views on contagion together and chose the view of negation as found with the Salaf such as Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim bin Sallām and others as the correct and superior view, on account of clear and intelligible considerations.

In the recording itself, this misunderstanding is cleared when the Shaykh is told that Ibn Ḥajar was meant, not Ibn Ḥazm. In such a case, the mention of Ibn Ḥazm being a Ḍhāhirī becomes invalid in the discussion of the subject matter itself, and it is from academic honesty that you, as a student, mention this so as not to mislead the listener to the belief that negation of contagion is a literalist viewpoint. In other words, the idea that it is held by people who just take things literally without any understanding.

The Second: As for the view of Ibn Ḥazm on contagion, then it can be found here: Ibn Ḥazm al-Andalūsī (d. 456H) on Contagion.

The essence of his view is that there is no contagion and the advice of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) regarding the leper [the plague, and sick camels] is effectively that: “Do what you wish, flee if you want, you will not escape the decree of Allāh.” He also said that it is not known from any of the Companions, that they fled from lepers like they would flee from a lion, and nor is it known from any family members of a leper, such as a wife, or husband, or father, or mother, or son, or daughter, that they would flee from the leper. The meaning therefore is other than this. There is nothing Ḍhāhirī in this viewpoint, and Ibn Ḥazm was preceded in this view of negation by the Salaf, rather, the Companions of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم).

The Third: From the things mentioned by Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn (رحمه الله) in the audio is that it is not possible that legislation would ever oppose reality and that if we were to say there is no contagion, then there would be an uproar against Islām. Everyone’s saying can be accepted or rejected except that of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and in this case what the Shaykh mentioned, that negating contagion would lead to commotion against Islām, then the opposite is actually true.

It had already been established by the early 20th century that contagion is a falsified notion due to extensive experiments conducted since the mid-19th century which failed to prove contagion, despite using the most invasive of methods in inoculating healthy people with the emissions of sick people, inclusive of blood transfusion. All the diseases assumed to be “contagious” by ordinary, routine contact were empirically proven not to be contagious.

This showed that people, throughout history, had been making the same mistakes which the bedouin made in respect to his camels and scabies. Namely, confusing coincidence with causation and exaggerating in the matter of causation itself and ignoring the true and more foundational causes of disease from Allāh’s decree and believing the notion that disease is “transmitted”, instead of it being freshly-created in each entity for whom it has been decreed each time.

Nevertheless, it was due to the money-power that a flawed and disproven theory of disease (germ theory, viral contagion) and the medical interventions build upon it (vaccinations) gained acceptance. The Muslims believed this as well, sadly, without detailed scientific inquiry and thorough examination of the theoretical foundations of these ideas.

Coming back to the speech about literalism and a presumed uproar against Islām, to illustrate, if some zealous Muslim said: "Our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: 'Flee from the leper as you would a lion', and this is a proof for contagion and avoiding the leper so as not to develop leprosy", a non-Muslim would simply retort: "Sorry, but your Prophet is wrong, because leprosy has been empirically proven not to be contagious", then he will cite the following from the CDC (US Centres for Disease Control):^[5]

Then he will also cite hundreds upon hundreds of observations, testimonies and experiences of physicians that leprosy is not contagious at all in the ordinary sense of the word.

This would actually create an uproar and commotion against Islam in fact, when we deal with empirically proven, concrete realities.

One has to be honest in seeking the truth and accept it from whomever it comes. Those who established the non-contagious nature of leprosy include the Companions, and after them, scholars such as Ibn Ḥazm, al-Qurṭubī and likewise, in the modern era, Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī. A scholar's statement is not proof in itself, unless it is backed with evidence and conforms with empirically established realities.

Neither leprosy, nor the plague, nor smallpox, nor typhus, nor the cold or the flu, nor consumption (tuberculosis) and nor any other disease is contagious. Their alleged contagious nature has been empirically falsified. This was concretely established and known by the early 20th century.

Thus, there is no proof in the speech of Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn in this matter, and nor Shaykh al-Albānī or anyone else who affirms the contagion which the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) negated, with the claim that it is an established reality. That is not so, this is a mere belief based upon presumptions and errors in the matter of causation, the same ones that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) pointed out to the bedouin.

This is because both the plague and leprosy are empirically proven not to be contagious, not even by the most invasive of methods within medical experiments. These were once accepted realities, before the falsifiers came along with their speculative, pseudoscientific theories of disease in the modern era to support the path of unwarranted fear, superstition and anxiety for the selling of serums, potions, brews, concoctions and injections made using the filth of animals.

In the view of Ibn Khuzaymah (رحمه الله) the scholars who affirmed contagion erred, because they affirmed what the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) negated. In fact, the contagionist physicians were described as ignoramuses by Shaykh Ḥāfiẓ al-Ḥakamī in this respect, and he spoke truthfully, for they are indeed ignorant of the factual realities, and operate merely out of assumption and presumption, just like the common-folk. This maybe a hard and bitter pill to swallow, but the truth is always bitter.

The errors made by the contagionists, as alluded to by scholars such as Ibn Khuzaymah, Ḥāfiḍh al-Hakamī and others have been discussed in other articles. Refer to NoContagion.Com and also towards the end of the article: Four Affairs of Jāhiliyyah That People Will Not Leave: Including Claims of Disease 'Transmission' and 'Contagion' .

03  CLAIM: 'DIFFICULT PHILOSOPHY'

This claim, that negation of contagion involves “difficult philosophy”, from a student of knowledge in the United States, is perhaps one of the most ignorant and evil of statements and emanates from bigotry and fanaticism, and absence of any rational thought. He also described it as a “weak and disproven opinion”, built upon “flawed logic”. This is not how you describe a judgement (قضاء) of Allāh's Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Rather, this is a revilement of such a judgement.

There is nothing difficult in understanding; “Nothing transmits [what it has of illness] to anything else.” This is a clear, explicit, unambiguous statement. There is no “philosophy” involved here, as the matter is very simple.

No person transmits his instance of illness to anyone else as temporal states and conditions (aʿrāḍ) that arise in one body are not transmitted to another body, rather every instance of disease is a fresh creation in each entity for which it has been decreed through the sum of its causes and event-chains at the appointed time and place.

This is true irrespective of whether we believe that the sick emits something that may make the healthy sick or not. It was not the state of illness that was transmitted, but just one of its alleged causes—even though the sick making the healthy sick through his emission has not been proven empirically in scientifically valid experiments, it has always been assumed. We have alluded to many failed contagion experiments earlier in the article.

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463H) (رحمه الله) said:^[7]

Disease is an ʿaraḍ (temporal state, condition), it is multicausal and multifactorial, its causes and event-chains lie outside of itself. Because of this, “infectiousness” or “contagiousness” is not the property of any disease at all, this is the saying of the disbelievers and sadly, the Muslims have followed them in this.

Therefore, no such thing as a “contagious” disease exists, since “contagiousness” cannot be the property of any disease as has preceded. As such, contagion does not exist in principle as no disease state is ever transmitted by anybody to anybody else. It is a falsified notion. All disease instances in all entities are fresh creations through the sum of their causes and event-chains.

The notion of “spread” or “transmission” is simply an abstraction of the mind based on misinterpretation of observations and confusing coincidence with causation, and misunderstanding of physical reality.

While much more can be said, and all these affairs have been sufficiently addressed elsewhere, it is from ignorance and oppression that in this particular subject matter, the view of the negation of contagion is claimed to involve “difficult philosophy”, that it is a “weak and disproven opinion” and is built upon “flawed logic”.

These statements are not based upon objective, honest research but are more reflective of bias, fanaticism and bigotry to a view, perhaps with the aim of justifying one’s own irrational, exaggerated and unwarranted fear, and Allāh knows best.

The authors of these opinions should know that not everyone has to be driven by fear and anxiety like them, and that there are those like ʿUmar bin al-Khaṭṭāb (رضي الله عنه) and his son, ʿAbd Allāh bin ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) and many of the Salaf thereafter who do not subscribe to these superstitions, and errors and exaggerations in causation.

Conclusion

While Muslim scholars have differed in the subject of contagion and have provided various ways of reconcialiation between apparently conflicting ḥadīths, and a student of knowledge would be exposed to this topic from two different routes, in the study of conflicting ḥadīths and the study of the affairs of Tawḥīd, there are no grounds for making baseless, exaggerated claims and describing a view in a way that is outside the bounds of justice and evidence.

Those who made these false claims described above have not recanted from them, and have allowed people to continue holding false notions, and this is considered an academic crime, wherein you engage in pseudo-scholarship (by not treating a subject matter with honesty and the standards of academic proficiency) and you knowingly allow your false and erroneous claims therein to remain in propagation and in people's minds and hearts.

Take your pick:

You can take the speech of he who claims that negation of contagion involves “difficult philosophy” and “flawed logic” or you can take the speech of those like Shaykh Ḥāfiḍh al-Ḥakamī (رحمه الله) who, after a detailed treatment of the matter, state that:^[8]

Keep in mind that those who make these types of claims that negation of contagion involves “difficult philosophy” and “flawed logic” are the same ones who hid behind perspex screens, wore masks and gloves and refused to shake hands with other people, all out of fear of disease-free healthy people and an imaginary, in silico virus that has no existence in physical reality.

For further reading see:

• A Refutation of Darwinian Virology
• Facemasks Functioning as Talismans to Relieve Fear and Anxiety
• Six-Feet Social Distancing Completely Made Up, No Basis in Science

Whoever made these false claims about the judgement (قضاء) of the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم), then he needs to recant from them and explain their erroneous, exaggerated and unjust nature to those who have been misled by them.

Footnotes