SyedMajidHashmi

The Manhaj of Ustad Moosaa Richardson and Anwar Wright has stooped to the level of the followers of Shaykh Muhammad bin Hadi — may Allah Almighty guide him. The followers of Shaykh MBH never gave importance to principled evidence; rather, they clung to the so-called honor of Shaykh MBH, and thus they fell. Fear of Allah Almighty was nowhere to be seen. Likewise, in this fitnah involving Arafat and his supporters, such as Ustad Moosaa and Anwar Wright, there is no importance given to principled evidence. They too speak about the honor of scholars while neglecting principled evidence, and the fear of Allah Almighty is nowhere to be seen. If they do not rectify themselves, they too will fall like their predecessors, in shaa Allah.

Supporters of Arafat are now trying to divert the issue from Arafat’s lies to the issue of contagion. Salafis, do not fall for this trap. Remain firm upon demanding proofs for Arafat’s slanders against Abu Iyaad, or his open repentance.

May Allah Almighty bless Salafiyyah FOR Abu Iyaad, and all those who give precedence to principled evidence over personalities.

@JustASalafi @ismaaeelmv Arafat is an arrogant fraud.

@ismaaeelmv Strange how arafat is mute regarding the deviation of his students meanwhile he will try his best to lie upon abu iyad in order to make tebdi on him . Very selective

Shame should be upon those who promote blind following while claiming adherence to Salafiyyah at the same time. Shame should be upon those who do not understand the scientific aspects of COVID-19 themselves, yet blame the knowledgeable people only to conceal their own ignorance of the subject, while disguising it as love for and obedience to the scholars. Shame should be upon those who have the audacity to call Arafat a scholar even after detailed criticism from Ahlul-ʿIlm establishing him as a liar. Do such people think they are above Salafi principles because of their seniority in Salafi daʿwah? The shameless supporters of Arafat will bear the burden of his lies in the Hereafter unless they repent openly now.

So, all this revolved around: not submitting to their authority, and publishing worldly information that made people see that they were wrong and harsh in their judgment on this issue. In fact, I was supporting the same position taken by Sheikh Al-Luhaydan (may Allah have mercy on him) during the swine flu in 2009, when he said the hype was nothing but fear-mongering to sell vaccines, and his statement proved true, even though they mocked him and dubbed him ‘the “virologist” scholar’ (mockingly and sarcastically). Sheikh Al-Luhaydan also expressed skepticism about the Covid issue. In the same manner, they accused me, and accused all the Muslim doctors in the world who took a similar stance, that we are no different from ’Amr ibn ‘Ubaid the Mu’tazili, and that we seek fame and money. Their followers in Europe repeated this accusation last year, and Allah knows we are innocent and free from that. This is the summary of my case. As for a broader aspect, Arafat’s followers in Europe were saying things like: ‘Why don’t you refer your matters to Sheikh Al-Bukhari?’ and ‘Why have you left him?’ and the like. They also cited some speech from Sheikh ’Ubaid during one of the courses, where he gave us a Tele-Link call in 2021. In it, he mentioned his nomination of Sheikh Al-Bukhari and Arafat to participate in the course, and said verbatim: ‘I nominate for you after me,’ meaning I nominate them for you for participation after me. But the translator translated it inaccurately, making its meaning: ‘I leave them to you as an inheritance after me’ (i.e., I bequeath them to you). So, Arafat’s followers began using this speech, and it became one of their main arguments: ’Look, Sheikh ‘Ubaid told them they must follow Sheikh Al-Bukhari and Arafat and refer to them, and they are not doing so.’ In summary: This is the speech of Arafat’s followers, and I do not rule out that Arafat himself was the one hinting to them about that, and Allah knows best.” End of Speech of Abu Iyaad, May Allah taala preserve him.

Only those who are NOT nurtured on the importance of Daleel and its Principles does the Blind following and are against Abu Iyaad. May Allah taala Bless Salafiyyah for Abu iyaad for his accurate words on this Fitna. Abu Iyaad said “I believe the real reason for the attack was defending Sheikh Al-Bukhari, because he is the origin of all this talk: In 2021, when the vaccines came out and people started dying, and most European countries suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine in March 2021, I advised people not to take it. If they were in Muslim countries where it was required for work, I advised them not to take the mRNA vaccine and to take others like Sinovac (the Chinese one). They claimed that this was an attack on scholars and an accusation that they do not know the fiqh of reality, and that I must stop speaking and refer to the scholars—I think they meant (only) Sheikh Al-Bukhari. This was the issue I was discussing in the audio clip (i.e., the one Arafat used), when some of them were presenting these objections to me, saying: ‘Why do you speak about vaccines and such?’ Later in the same year, they escalated the matter to Sheikh Al-Bukhari. He issued a verdict stating that whoever advises against taking the vaccine is sinful, and said: ’What is the difference between you and ’Amr ibn ‘Ubaid?’ He said we were doing it for money and fame. His response was ambiguous and contradictory; because he also said he was obliged to follow what the authorities where he is say, and cannot dissent from their opinion, and that medical matters are speculative and subject to disagreement. At that time, I knew that this judgment of his—meaning the judgment of declaring sinful and what nears declaring innovation—was incorrect and unjust. But I chose to concede, considering the interest of the da’wah and to prevent division. Then matters subsided during 2022 and early 2023. When the pandemic officially ended in 2023, I began publishing on my site information about vaccine harms and how to treat them, after many people suffered illnesses and complications. I said in several places that the doctors and specialists who advised caution had fulfilled their duty religiously, professionally, and in accordance with the legal system in their countries. I mentioned more than once that they are not taking the path of the Mu’tazilah, and that accusing them of that is not just. In August 2023, Arafat—while in Indonesia—claimed that saying people died because of the vaccine is a lie, and said: ‘This is a lie.’ Consequently, what I was explaining made Arafat look bad in front of his followers. I also cited studies from Muslim countries, from Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to prove the harms of mRNA vaccines. Arafat’s followers began conveying this to him, and he and they felt offended because they did not want to admit they were wrong, and that Sheikh Al-Bukhari’s verdict issued in 2021 was erroneous and harsh, and was not based on the true facts. Then in 2024, I published a link to an article based on a statement by Sheikh Ali Al-Hudhayfi about ‘population control’ (i.e., that one of the goals of the vaccines {by their makers’ admission} is controlling the Earth’s population). That was—I believe—on September 17th. Just a few days later, on September 19th, Arafat began his attack and started publishing a long list of accusations, all based on the same audio clip, and his style indicated anger and distress. Summary of the Real Reason: 1.Defending the status of Sheikh Al-Bukhari and his harsh verdict which he issued—and it is not the verdict of the senior scholars in Riyadh. 2.Defending Arafat himself; because he was denying an established fact, which is that the vaccines indeed caused harm, and because he took a severe stance that made him look bad in front of his followers. They also used to say: ‘Why doesn’t he listen to Sheikh Al-Bukhari? Why doesn’t he take his advice? Why doesn’t he stop writing?’ and so on.

Even though I am not optimistic about Arafat based on his earlier behavioral patterns, I ask Allah Almighty that I am wrong in my assessment of Arafat al-Kadhdhāb. And May Arafat Repent and Rectify himself before its too late for him. Aameen

@MBAsupplements @ismaaeelmv No

@SyedMajidHashm6 @ismaaeelmv Funny coming from you

@MBAsupplements @ismaaeelmv Its your Wahm

@SyedMajidHashm6 @ismaaeelmv I’m starting to realise you don’t understand what the term “principled” means

@MBAsupplements @ismaaeelmv No, Principled evidence is the difference between correct and erroneous groups.

@ismaaeelmv The “blind Shaykh-love and ḥizbiyyah” swings both ways.

@MBAsupplements @Zeeshan33481465 "Without principled evidence"

@Zeeshan33481465 @SyedMajidHashm6 Exactly my thoughts

If the refutation of such a senior scholar as Shaykh Wasiullah Abbas was rejected against SPUBS due to the absence of principled evidence, then what position does Arafat al-Kadhdhāb hold with his lies and without principled evidence against a Sunni such as Abu Iyaad? Do these clowns think they can speak against Salafis without being asked for principled evidence? Are they daydreaming?

@MBAsupplements Its your Wahm

@SyedMajidHashm6 Also your statement “No one can come and speak against salafis” is problematic, since you’re now throwing people off the manhaj without “principled evidence”.

Arafat Al Muhammadi - A Blatant Liar within Salafi ranks. May Allah taala preserve Shaykh Nizar for Standing for Truth and its people. And i hope that Ustaad Moosaa Richardson follows his own principle of following scholars no matter what, he must adhere to Shaykh Nizar now.

@MBAsupplements Who? what ? From Shaykh wasiullah to now Shaykh Bukhari ? Leave it. Or DM me

@SyedMajidHashm6 But they had ample opportunity to present evidence to Sh. Bukhari….

@MBAsupplements No we rejected it because Sh wasiullah did not provide principled evidence for his criticism. No one can come and speak against salafis without evidence, not even a scholar can do that.

@SyedMajidHashm6 Read the question again. It’s a simple yes or no

@kuwait2022auk @troidorg Zakir naik, salman al ouda, adnan aroor etc

@troidorg Give an example.

🆕 Plants Amongst Ahl al-Sunnah Al-‘Allāmah Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī troid.org/plants-amongst…

@MBAsupplements Read the post again

@SyedMajidHashm6 Didn’t they reject it because Sh. Wasiullah called AK an ignoramus?