In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has appealed to the British public to get vaccinated because it’s how we love our neighbor!

First Point: We remind Archbishop that he still has not responded to the command of the Lord of the heavens and the earth regarding submission to pure Tawheed. Allaah said:

قُلۡ يَـٰٓأَهۡلَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبِ تَعَالَوۡاْ إِلَىٰ ڪَلِمَةٍ۬ سَوَآءِۭ بَيۡنَنَا وَبَيۡنَكُمۡ أَلَّا نَعۡبُدَ إِلَّا ٱللَّهَ وَلَا نُشۡرِكَ بِهِۦ شَيۡـًٔ۬ا وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعۡضُنَا بَعۡضًا أَرۡبَابً۬ا مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ‌ۚ فَإِن تَوَلَّوۡاْ فَقُولُواْ ٱشۡهَدُواْ بِأَنَّا مُسۡلِمُونَ

Say (O Muhammad): “O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: “Bear witness that we are Muslims]. [Surah Aal Imraan. Aayah 64]

[تَعَالَوۡاْ إِلَىٰ ڪَلِمَةٍ۬ سَوَآءِۭ بَيۡنَنَا وَبَيۡنَكُمۡ – Come to a word that is just between us and you]- Meaning, come let us unite upon the statement which all the Prophets and Messengers agreed upon and none opposes it except the obstinate and misguided. This statement is not specific to anyone of us; rather it is something that you and us should establish between us, because this is justice and fairness in debate.

Then Allaah explains this and said: [أَلَّا نَعۡبُدَ إِلَّا ٱللَّهَ وَلَا نُشۡرِكَ بِهِۦ شَيۡـًٔ۬ا – that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him]- Meaning, we should single out Allaah in worship, devoting all love, fear and hope to Him alone, and we should not associate anyone as partner with Allaah in worship- neither a prophet, an angel, a righteous person, an idol, a deified image, a living or non-living thing, [وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعۡضُنَا بَعۡضًا أَرۡبَابً۬ا مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ‌ۚ – and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allaah]; rather all obedience is to be devoted to Allah and His Messengers. [فَإِن تَوَلَّوۡاْ فَقُولُواْ ٱشۡهَدُواْ بِأَنَّا مُسۡلِمُونَ – Then, if they turn away, say: “Bear witness that we are Muslims]. [1] 

The above is the first affair obligated on us, the Archbishop and all humankind.

Second Point: There is no doubt that all the prophets and messengers of Allaah commanded their true followers to treat neigbors kindly. The seal of the prophets Muhammad [peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him] said: “Gabriel kept advising me to be good to neighbors until I thought he would make them my heirs”. [Sunan Ibn Majah. Hadeeth Number 3674]

He [peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him] said, “He is not a (true) believer who spends the night satiated while the neighbor to his side is hungry”. [Saheeh Al-Jaami 5382]

He [peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him] said, “By Allah, he does not (trly) believe! By Allah, he does not (truly) believe! By Allah, he does not (truly) believe!” It was said, “Who is that, O Allah’s Messenger?” He said, “That person whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil.” [Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree.Number 6016]

Al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, asked his Companions about fornication and they said, “It is unlawful. Allah and His Messenger have made it unlawful.” He said, “It is less serious for a man to fornicate with ten women than for him to fornicate with his neighbor’s wife.” Then he asked them about stealing. They replied, “It is unlawful. Allah and His Messenger have made it unlawful.” He said, “It is less serious for a man to steal from ten houses than it is for him to steal from his neighbor’s house.” [Saheeh Adabul Mufrad. Hadeeth Number 103]

We’ll suffice with these narrations and thanks to Archbishop for reminding the public about the importance of kind treatment towards neighbors. However, the Archbishop must be reminded of the fact that he has utilized a general statement – regarding kind treatment to neighbors – in a manner that would even give neighbors – in the name of love – the rights of others. That is because it is a fundamental right of every individual to either accept or refuse a medical treatment -neither blackmailed, vilified and slandered nor considered as one who should be deradicalized as one extremist Pro-vaccine advocate suggests. In a Hadeeth reported by Imaam Al-Bukhaaree [may Allaah have mercy upon him], the Prophet [peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him] was given medicine without his permission, as Aa’Isha [may Allaah be pleased with her] said, “We put medicine in one side of his mouth but he started waving us not to insert the medicine into his mouth. We said, “He dislikes the medicine as a patient usually does.” But when he came to his senses he said, “Did I not forbid you to put medicine (by force) in the side of my mouth?” We said, “We thought it was just because a patient usually dislikes medicine.” He said, “None of those who are in the house but will be forced to take medicine in the side of his mouth while I am watching, except Al-Abbas [may Allaah be pleased with him], because he did not witness your deed.” [Al-Bukhaari. Number 5712]

Imaam Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz [may Allaah have mercy upon him] stated regarding this narration, “The sick person should not be forced to take medication, because it is not obligatory and it is the statement of the majority of scholars. [2]

Therefore, if some neighbors are so terrified that they require us to be vaccinated before they can talk or socialize with us, then indeed that is their choice, because everyone is responsible for his or her health. However, the good treatment towards neighbors remains and will continue whenever they choose to socialize again. We can shop for them and collect their medications from the chemist, whilst social distancing because social distancing has been mandated by the government.

Third Point: It seems that the Archbishop’s suggestion regarding vaccination is due to something in his mind and heart regarding contagion, therefore we remind ourselves of the following articles:

https://www.salafidawahtooting.com/blog/principles-concernin-infectious-diseases

Harmonising between the Prophet’s negation of contagious diseases and his forbiddance of entering a land which has a contagious disease, mixing with afflicted people and touching them―Imām Ibn Bāz, Imām Al-Albāni and Al-Hāfidh Ibn Hajr

Fourth Point: There should be no exaggeration in this affair regarding Covid 19. Read “An Advice Regarding Differing Over COVID-19 ― And Understanding The Ijitihād Of Scholars In Worldly Affairs”: https://www.abukhadeejah.com/advice-regarding-differing-over-covid-19/

Fifth Point: The Archbishop should be informed of the fact that this affair has gone beyond illness, neigbors, social distancing and vaccination, rather it is an affair through which the Darwinists (atheists) propagate their disbelief in Allah.

Quote:

Viewpoint – Influenza A H1N1: past and future Professor John Oxford — 10 March 2011 Professor John Oxford reflects on how this Darwinian virus came to dominate the 2010/11 flu season.

We have just been visited by the third wave of a classical super fit, dominant and very Darwinian pandemic virus. In fact Charles Darwin would find it incredible to view his own theory of survival of the fittest proved before his very eyes in one year.13 The disbelievers speak like this because the very conception of the “virus” is intrinsically Darwinian in nature, from its beginning to its end and cannot be separated from it. Thus, every epidemic or pandemic or individual illness is framed from the angle of an evolutionary agent that invades, mutates adapts, spreads and survives, using the vulnerabilities of haphazardly created biological life.

And as we shall see, this leads to the claim that a scientific approach to dealing with pandemics is therefore not possible except upon the foundations of Darwinian evolution. And this is what we see today among the disbelievers when they speak of viruses mutating and so on, leading to variants, and all of this turning into a so-called biological “arms race” between viruses and human.

Thus, a new virus appears through mutation and selection, so an alleged “vaccine” is produced against, it, but the virus mutates and outwits the whole world, and then the race is on for another “vaccine” and then this process continues. So this is an ongoing “arms race” as they claim, between “variants” and mankind represented by the pharmaceuticals and Bill Gates. Its very dramatic and theatrical, great for manipulating people through fear, for business and profits, but completely false and baseless.

This is all pure speculation based on misinterpretation of observations along with scientific fraud. The deception has been compounded in the late 20th century through the use of genetic sequencing to maintain the illusion, but this discussion is for another place. In short, all alleged “genomes” for alleged “viruses” are nothing but theoretical, mathematically constructed sequences with the use of computer software for gap-filling and creative construction.

Since the disbelievers are misinterpreting the bodies own genetic breakdown material or proteins that the body itself generates as “viral” genetic material 14 and then theorising and abstracting these components as a foreign entity capable of being transmitted, it is possible to turn perfectly healthy people as “infected” and as “carriers”—such as what is said today, “asymptomatic carriers”. This allows the door to become wide open for baseless, exaggerated fear, superstition and omens. [3]

Finally, is the Archbishop prepared to accept responsibility if we take the vaccine and something goes wrong or is he willing to agree to the following?!

Dear Archbishop,

I am writing to pose questions to you regarding the proposed X, Y or Z vaccinations. I hereby notify you that I shall only offer my consent to be vaccinated upon condition that you find a doctor who is willing to answer each and every single question set out below in the affirmative and all reasoning requested supplied to me as soon as reasonably practicable.

Q1: Are you Dr ……………., exercising your duties as a medical doctor as laid out by the GMC and do you stand by that at all material times? YES / NO (Circle your answer)

Q2: Are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the X, Y or Z vaccine is sufficiently safe and effective for mass rollout without a marketing licence? YES / NO (Circle your answer)

Q3: Are you satisfied that the X, Y or Z vaccine is even necessary with the generally accepted survival rate from disease X, Y or Z being around 99.96%, and the vast majority of recorded deaths being in the elderly and those with severe co-morbidities? YES / NO (Circle your answer)

Q4: Are you certain that the X, Y or Z vaccination campaign is not a human experiment? YES / NO (Circle your answer)

Q5: Do you therefore agree that fully informed consent of a man or a woman, boy or girl is a fundamental pre-requisite to both respecting their fundamental human rights under UDBHR, GDPR and due and proper fulfilment of your duty as a doctor? YES / NO (Circle your answer)

Q6: Do you have in your possession or control reliable data, independently verified, detailing the precise ingredients in the X, Y or Z vaccine? YES / NO (Circle your answer)

Q7: Are you satisfied as a medical doctor/professional that such vaccine ingredients shall not individually or collectively cause me adverse psychological and/or physical reactions? YES / NO (Circle your answer)

Q8: Are you prepared to sign a personal indemnity for the benefit of myself and/or my heirs/next-of-kin upon full unlimited liability in your private capacity for any harm or loss of life experienced by me from adverse reactions following upon my taking the vaccine in one or repeated doses? YES / NO (Circle your answer)

Q9: Do you understand that concealment of data and blocking or wilful refusal to provide data or information relating to our personal data is a criminal offence under Data Protection Act 2018 section 173? YES / NO (Circle your answer)

Q10: Are you prepared to set out your precise reasons upon independent evidence for your affirmative answers to Questions 2. 3 and 7? Kindly send me a reply signed in wet ink within one calendar month in order to comply with Data Protection requirements and answer my concerns in honour and lawful transparency. Thank you.
By:

(Signature in blue)

[Ref 1: An Excerpt from Tafseer As-Sadi]

[Ref 2: Al-Hulalul Ibreeziyyah Min At-Ta’leeqaat Al-Baaziyyah Alaa Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree. Vol 4. page 154]

[Ref 3: Source: The Saying of the People of Tawḥīd and Īmān Versus the Saying of the People of Kufr, Shirk and Khidhlān. pages 9-11]