Asaaghir wrote:
View original post
"Lives will be lost when scholars from our own academia will mislead laypeople"
Speaking of Ulamaa, recently a Mufti was strongly promoting vaccines. The Mufti is very knowledgeable Islamically and has great concerns for communities, youth and more. I remembered the questions that one member on here gathered that no one answered and I found to be very valid questions. I passed these questions onto the Mufti. I only asked because of how strongly he was promoting the vaccines and as I found these questions very valid and unanswered, I figured if anyone would fairly address it, it'd be this Mufti that's promoting the vaccines so strongly. So I sent the questions (without editing it) to him on WhatsApp (in a group with other people as that's where he asked).
Quote:
The vaccine will not give you immunity, period.
You will still catch the virus and spread it.
You will be a carrier and you will endanger others because you think you can't catch it.
When you take the vaccine, you will still have to follow all guidelines, in other words, masks, sanitiser, washing and the rest of it.
You will still catch the virus and spread it.
You will be a carrier and you will endanger others because you think you can't catch it.
When you take the vaccine, you will still have to follow all guidelines, in other words, masks, sanitiser, washing and the rest of it.
This quote is from Asaaghir but I think they're a compilation of Abu Mohammed's questions from various threads. The main thing here are the questions so I wanted it addressed.
He first replied just by asking me for sources which is correct. After all, if the questions are baseless then the answer is that the questions are invalid. So that's absolutely the way to go. However, I am fully aware of how everything is automatically rejected, dismissed, disqualified if it doesn't match one's own predisposition so I was careful to locate the sources only from World Health Organisation, NHS and CDC. So I personally gathered the sources so if anything was unavailable, I can reject the questions myself) but they were all available from their source so I sent him the following:
Quote:
Sources: WHO, NHS, CDC (all your sources)
Connections:
WHO+NHS: www.who.int/about/funding/contributors/gbr
WHO+CDC: www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/who-collaboration.htm
Sources for the information the questions arose from:
The vaccine will not give you immunity.
The vaccine will not eradicate the virus.
news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1080982
www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-w...
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html
You will still catch the virus and spread it.
You will be a carrier and you will endanger others because you think you can't catch it.
www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-va...
www.mkuh.nhs.uk/covid-19-vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine-in...
When you take the vaccine, you will still have to follow all guidelines, in other words, masks, sanitiser, washing and the rest of it.
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html
www.ulh.nhs.uk/content/uploads/2020/12/PHE-vaccine-leafle...
Connections:
WHO+NHS: www.who.int/about/funding/contributors/gbr
WHO+CDC: www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/who-collaboration.htm
Sources for the information the questions arose from:
The vaccine will not give you immunity.
The vaccine will not eradicate the virus.
news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1080982
www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-w...
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html
You will still catch the virus and spread it.
You will be a carrier and you will endanger others because you think you can't catch it.
www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-va...
www.mkuh.nhs.uk/covid-19-vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine-in...
When you take the vaccine, you will still have to follow all guidelines, in other words, masks, sanitiser, washing and the rest of it.
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html
www.ulh.nhs.uk/content/uploads/2020/12/PHE-vaccine-leafle...
So there it is. The sources to valid questions raised from the publications of those who the Mufti follows so strongly.
The following is the unedited copy/paste reply of the reply from the Mufti:
Quote:
So a bunch of random points from random pieces brought together in a WhatsApp message. I'll look into it later and see what exactly has been said in those pieces because the first one you shared was misleading.
I share this because if it was a Fiqh issue, every point would be addressed. But here, the Mufti that leads communities, a person who is meant to be unbiased and only the facts should matter. A person who should always remain silent when unsure replied with that. Let me highlight the problems with this response.
Problem 1:
The Mufti called it "random" - I asked why it's random. He remained silent (to be more precise, he used the face with a zip on the mouth emoji)
Here is my justification why they were not "Random":
a) all questions were related to vaccines (on topic)
b) all questions were from the government sources that he uses to strongly promote them
Problem 2:
He said "pieces brought together in a WhatsApp message"
I asked him who said it was brought together in a WhatsApp message. I immediately knew it was a form of discreditation as he had no reason to assume it was a forwarded message. I actually typed it word by word from Asaaghir, it wasn't even a forward so he had no reason to assume that. Again, he did not reply to this question.
Problem 3:
He then says that he'll look into it later. Isn't that what should be done by a Mufti before assuming anything else like it's "forwarded" and calling it "random" on no basis? Is this acceptable just because he a Mufti/Aalim the way people keep going on Ulamaa and their input in these matters like it's a revelation? Is this what the Ulamaa trained for?
Problem 4:
He said, "The first one being misleading"
This is referring to the original unedited questions I sent him without the sources. Because it didn't have sources, he labelled it "misleading" for the other members of the WhatsApp group. Besides that, if he was indeed knowledgeable in the matter about vaccines that he's so strongly promoting then he would already know about these facts that he's promoting so strongly. So it was not misleading. What's scary is that he was promoting it and he didn't even know those facts.
Problem 5:
Before I sent the questions, he repeatedly said "Follow the doctors, we're not experts" - However, when what he was promoting got a few questions, he tried to answer it himself by asking for the sources. Did he refer to experts when the questions were asked? Instead he attacked the questions.
Problem 6:
He did not address a single question or ask for any clarifications. He attacked the questions instead. Isn't this what politicians do when they're facing honest opposition? They attack the person and their work. They try to discredit them, put crimes on them on technicalities or even change the law to make them a criminal.
He did eventually reply after going through the sources and this is how he addressed the questions that were sent:
Mufti wrote:
"OK, just went through the NHS link, and from all the positive things they've said about the vaccine, the person who put that WhatsApp message together extracted one sentence that says still follow social distancing as there aren't any guarantees in anything. Lmao. That's the extent of your shoddy research. Bro, this is an epic time waste."
I want to break this down and show everyone the harsh realities that even seasoned knowledgeable Muftis deceive and become no better than you and I when it comes to certain selective and biased understandings they promote without knowledge in the matter. Their Iftaa training, respect and everything goes out of the window. Yes I was disgusted by this and I didn't post it straight away but seeing how some members speak of Ulamaa when it comes to subjects they DO NOT understand and blindly follow every narrative I had to post this personal experience in detail.
Issue 1: He mentions "all the positives" written in the articles. So this either means:
a) If there's positive, then any negative should be ignored or dismissed
b) If there's positives, the negatives don't exist even if it's there in writing.
c) If there's positives then anything that can raise a question is dismissable or "random"
So which is it? I can't think of any more possibilities.
Issue 2: He again called it a "WhatsApp message" as if that makes it invalid. In fact, weren't his very messages on the same platform? On what grounds does a question or statement become valid if it's on a web site or publication and invalid if it's on whatsapp? What kind of logic is this? What kind of disrespect to the qualification and position is this?
The rest of the quote is obvious as you can see. He only addressed ONE question (not answered, just addressed it) which was the social distancing one and calling it "extracted one sentence".
To explain further, Ahadeeth are as strong as the chain of narrators. If there's one single weakness it's doubted. If there's 10 narrators and only 1 is weak then there's still 9 positives. Is that reason to ignore the 1 weak narrator? Absolutely not.
When you read terms and conditions, 99 are in your favour but only 1 is in there to make you liable. Would the judge ignore that 1 single one because there's 99 in favour of the defendant? Absolutely not.
What kind of logic dictates that you can't raise a question on a single sentence when most of it is positive? Why are people fired over a single tweet when all the rest are positive? The reason is that in any article especially one that involves saving lives, EVERY detail matters.
Knowing this I tried to help him understand that this is exactly what "questioning" is in reality.
I said:
Quote:
Saying "extracted one sentence" doesn't invalidate the question. A question is invalid if it's factually incorrect or the premise is flawed. Here, the question is valid because it's "extracted" from the source lol... the complete opposite of what you're saying.
He ignored this too and his response was the following and I'll leave you with that. I've highlighted the words to show what dishonesty and manipulation really looks like:
Mufti wrote:
Everything you mentioned here makes no sense. The geezer compiling that WhatsApp message and presenting it as if it's from WHO in that order and fashion, has committed dishonesty of the highest level. NHS and WHO have championed the vaccine and encouraged it, and random statements made weren't intended for the purpose that this WhatsApp researcher has used them for.
They aren't even worth entertaining when presented with such dishonesty.
They aren't even worth entertaining when presented with such dishonesty.
