2021: “Sheikh” Abu Anas Disassociated from “Maktaba Salafiyyah Maldives” in Court. — Committed Perjury, Lied Before the Court and Continues with his Lies!!
All praise is due to Allah, the Exalted, who commands justice, enjoins truthfulness, and strictly forbids perjury and the bearing of false witness. To proceed:
﴿ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَاءَ بِالْقِسْطِ ۖ وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَىٰ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا ۚ اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ﴾
[ المائدة: 8]
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do.
They claim that I was “entrusted solely” with these accounts. Entrusted by whom, and entrusted with what? They also claim that I “unlawfully seized control” of the accounts. Seized what, exactly, and from whom? What “right” and what “authority” are they even speaking about?
They further try to give the impression that I was acting alone. How do this team know that I was alone in my work?
The reality is that I was spreading the statements of the mashayikh of Ahl al-Sunnah regarding al-Bukhari and Arafat, and that is what triggered them. The main issue is that they are unable to address the actual matter, so instead they choose to attack the person while leaving the main issue unanswered.
It is from the foundations of the Religion that the truth must be clarified and falsehood must be exposed, especially when deception occurs in the courts of judgment and affects the trust placed in those who ascribe themselves to knowledge and Daʿwah. Let it be known to the seeker of truth that the foundation of a caller to Islam is his honesty; if his truthfulness falls, his credibility falls with it.
This principle was cemented by the great scholars of the Salaf.
Shaykh al-Islām and the Imām of the Abode of Migration, the Imām Abū ʿAbdillāh Mālik bin Anas bin Mālik bin Abī ʿĀmir al-Aṣbaḥī al-Ḥimyarī al-Madanī (93 AH – 179 AH) – may Allāh have mercy upon him – said:
“Knowledge is not taken from four [types of people]:
- A foolish person who openly displays his foolishness.
- A person of desires (hawā) who calls to it.
- A man who is known for lying in the conversations of the people, even if he does not lie upon the Messenger – ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam.
- And a man who possesses virtue and righteousness who does not know what he narrates.”
[📚 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr in Al-Tamhīd (1/66) and Al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ in Al-Ilmāʿ (p. 60)]
Therefore, if a man is proven to be a liar in the affairs of the people—let alone uttering fabrications before a judge—and openly displays the foolishness of his actions, his knowledge is to be abandoned until he openly makes manifest his repentance.
This treatise serves to clarify the reality of the actions of Abu Anas, who, in his attempt to escape the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, resorted to blatant fabrication before a judge regarding his connection to Makthaba Salafiyyah.
1 Fasl 1: Regarding the Court Proceedings and the Manifestation of His Denial
Background of the Dispute:
On 17 December 2019, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs of the Maldives suspended the religious sermons and preaching permit granted to Abu Anas (Mohamed Hassan). Seeking to annul the Ministry’s decision, he submitted the case to Civil Court of the Maldives in January 2020 with the financial support from Ali Faarish, owner of Mash’ar Hajj & Umrah and VR CAFE
It was during these judicial proceedings that Abu Anas gave false statement to the Court. He explicitly stated before the judge that he had absolutely no connection to Makthaba Salafiyyah and claimed that the entity was not registered in his name.
The official court document records this fabrication clearly, stating:
“The third allegation made by the defendant, in the temporary suspension notice of the permit to give religious sermons and to preach in the Maldives to the Plaintiff (Abu Anas), are documents submitted by the defendant, as Exhibit 5,7,8,10,11 and 12 are tweets made by an entity called “Makthaba Salafiyya”, from which it is not clearly apparent if these were written by the Plaintiff Abu Anas. Plaintiff Abu Anas has denied these tweets as his writings and that Makthaba Salafiyya is not an entity registered under the Plaintiff’s name. Defendant has not submitted sufficient evidence to the Court to negate the Plaintiff’s denial of having any connection with Makthaba Salafiyya. Police Intelligence Report submitted by the Defendant as Exhibit-14 fail to prove that the Plaintiff has any connection with Makthaba Salafiyya and that the statements made in the tweets of Makthaba Salafiyya are indeed that of the Plaintiff Abu Anas.”
Tanbīh : A seeker of truth may inquire: Why was this falsehood not exposed previously, and why has this treatise been authored only now? The reality is that his deception in the court was kept hidden from us. I remained entirely unaware of his perjury or false witness until the end of the year 2025, when I was first informed of it by Muhaz Hameed. The actual court documents reached me in April 2026 and thus, I was able to confirm it only then. What necessitated my personal examination of the official court judgment was Abu Anas himself; he audaciously wrote a message within a private group of brothers, attempting to claim ownership of Makthaba Salafiyya—the very entity he swore before a judge that he had no connection to! Upon witnessing this blatant contradiction, I retrieved and read the court documents, and his deception was brought fully to light.
2 Fasl 2: The Evidences Invalidating His Claim from Four Angles
As for his claim that he possessed “no connection” to Makthaba Salafiyyah, then it is a complete fabrication that is refuted by reality from several angles:
The First Angle: The Telegram Channel. The court judgment itself records that Abu Anas denied having any connection with “Makthaba Salafiyya,” and that the defendant had not produced sufficient evidence before the Court at that time to disprove his denial. The judgment states:
“Plaintiff Abu Anas has denied these tweets as his writings and that Makthaba Salafiyya is not an entity registered under the Plaintiff’s name. Defendant has not submitted sufficient evidence to the Court to negate the Plaintiff’s denial of having any connection with Makthaba Salafiyya.”
However, the reality outside the material presented to the Court directly contradicts the impression created by that denial.
The screenshot above shows the “Makthaba Salafiyyah Maldives” Telegram channel, which was created in October 2017. In the administrator list, “Abu Anas” is clearly shown as the “Owner” of the channel. He was not merely a subscriber, ordinary administrator. He held the highest level of control over the channel. His control continued for years. In April 2026, Abu Anas himself exercised that ownership authority and removed my administrative access from the Makthaba Salafiyyah Maldives Telegram channel.
This occurred after I published an article on Facebook containing the speech of Shaykh Fawwaz concerning Dr. ʿAbdullāh al-Bukhārī and ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī. The article was titled:
In that article, I quoted Shaykh Fawwaz as saying:
“Indeed, ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī is from the people of fitan and incitement, and there is no difference between him and the Muṣaʿfiqah. He is prepared to demolish the daʿwah and the efforts of the scholars, and to burn the green and the dry, for the sake of himself—and in that there is no difference between him and al-Bukhārī.”
After I released this article on facebook page, Adiyyu, Abu Anas and Muhaz Hameed made statements about me in the Ikhwatuh Salafiyyun Telegram group, which contained more than 200 Salafis. I regarded a number of those statements as false and subsequently responded to them. Muhaz Hameed also used his connections to convey accusations and claims about me to some of the mashāyikh in the UK, which I regard as lies and serious misrepresentations.
Furthermore, in 2025, Muhaz Hameed called me and asked me to remove posts relating to Shaykh Abu Iyad, Shaykh Abu Khadeejah, and the duʿāt of Salafi Publications on X. From my dealings with him and what I have witnessed over the years, I came to view his conduct as two-faced, authoritarian, oppressive, and driven by resentment (ḥiqd). This is my assessment based upon what I personally experienced from him.
In my view, what brought them together against me was not adherence to the principles of the Salafi methodology, but rather matters of influence, relevance, authority, elevation, and leadership. Muhaz and Abu Anas had come to know that I was no longer willing to simply follow their directions or act according to their wishes, and after that they united against me. This is the plain reality as I have witnessed and understood it.
Allah’s aid is sought.
والله المستعان
Therefore, whatever may have been proven or not proven from the exhibits that were placed before the Court at that time, it cannot truthfully be said in an unrestricted sense that Abu Anas had “no connection” with Makthaba Salafiyyah. He was, in fact, the owner of a Telegram channel carrying the name “Makthaba Salafiyyah Maldives” and possessed authority over its administrators.
This is the first clear piece of evidence showing why his denial of any connection with Makthaba Salafiyyah does not accord with the documented reality.
In December 2019, Rifad openly stated in the presence of Abu Anas: “We use the name Makthaba Salafiyyah to convey the Islamic message based on the Noble Qur’an and the Sunnah…”
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=803580410114355
The Second Angle: The Website Domain (salafi.mv). During that period, the website domain for Makthaba Salafiyyah was officially registered in 23/8/2014 under the name of Abu Anas through Dhiraagu, an ISP of the Maldivian Government. He bore responsibility for it and remained its administrator until 2026.
The Third Angle: Facebook Administration. The history of the Facebook pages further contradicts the claim that Abu Anas had “no connection” with Makthaba Salafiyyah.
I originally created a Facebook page called “SalafiMV” for the purpose of spreading the Salafi daʿwah in the Maldives. I also independently created a page called “Ustadh Abu Anas Muhammad Hassan” in order to share benefits, lectures, and material from Abu Anas. These pages were not created by Abu Anas, Muhaz Hameed, or anyone acting on their instructions. I created and managed them myself.
The screenshot above records a conversation with Abu Anas dated 23 January 2015. I sent him screenshots of three Facebook pages I was managing and told him:
“This are 3 pages now I run in fb. Salafimv Shafeeu n me running.”
I also told him that I had created a page under his name. This conversation is important because it shows that, as early as January 2015, Abu Anas was personally aware that I had created and was managing these Facebook pages.
The page that I had created was later renamed “Makthaba Salafiyyah Maldives.” At a later stage, I gave Abu Anas administrator access to the relevant Facebook pages, and I also gave administrator access to Salamaan Rasheed. As an administrator, Abu Anas had the ability to publish material, remove material, and exercise administrative control over the page. According to my records, he remained an administrator from 2015 until I revoked his administrative access in April 2026.
Therefore, the suggestion that Abu Anas had absolutely “no connection” with Makthaba Salafiyyah is difficult to reconcile with this history. He knew about the pages, was given administrative access, and remained involved in their administration for years.
This history also answers the later allegation that I “unlawfully seized control” of the Makthaba Salafiyyah social-media accounts. I reject that allegation entirely. I personally created these accounts for the purpose of spreading the Salafi daʿwah and managed them from their creation. They were not accounts originally created or owned by Abu Anas, Muhaz Hameed, or anyone else and then taken over by me.
So what exactly did I supposedly “seize,” and from whom? If I created and managed the accounts myself, while later voluntarily giving others administrative access, the fact that I subsequently removed that access does not establish that I seized somebody else’s accounts.
The documented history is the opposite: I created the pages, I managed them, Abu Anas knew of this from the early period, and I later granted him administrative access. His involvement with the Facebook administration is therefore another piece of evidence that must be considered when evaluating the broader claim that he had “no connection” with Makthaba Salafiyyah.
If a man is willing to blatantly falsify facts in a court of law merely to escape a governmental restriction, it establishes proof of his dishonesty.
What more documentation is required to prove a man’s untrustworthiness?
What more documentation is needed to prove he is a liar?
He cannot be trusted, and people must beware of him.
3 Fasl 3: On the Severe Danger of Perjury and False Testimony
Lying before a judge, bearing false witness (Shahādat al-Zūr), and making false oaths in order to escape liability or take the rights of others are from the major sins. The Qurʾān and Sunnah contain severe warnings regarding these matters.
Allah, the Most High, said:
﴿ وَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مُّؤْمِنٌ مِّنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَكْتُمُ إِيمَانَهُ أَتَقْتُلُونَ رَجُلًا أَن يَقُولَ رَبِّيَ اللَّهُ وَقَدْ جَاءَكُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ ۖ وَإِن يَكُ كَاذِبًا فَعَلَيْهِ كَذِبُهُ ۖ وَإِن يَكُ صَادِقًا يُصِبْكُم بَعْضُ الَّذِي يَعِدُكُمْ ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي مَنْ هُوَ مُسْرِفٌ كَذَّابٌ﴾
[ غافر: 28]
“And a believing man of Fir’aun’s (Pharaoh) family, who hid his faith said: “Would you kill a man because he says: My Lord is Allah, and he has come to you with clear signs (proofs) from your Lord? And if he is a liar, upon him will be (the sin of) his lie; but if he is telling the truth, then some of that (calamity) wherewith he threatens you will befall on you.” Verily, Allah guides not one who is a Musrif (a polytheist, or a murderer who shed blood without a right, or those who commit great sins, oppressor, transgressor), a liar!”
Allah, the Most High, said:
﴿ ذَٰلِكَ وَمَن يُعَظِّمْ حُرُمَاتِ اللَّهِ فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ ۗ وَأُحِلَّتْ لَكُمُ الْأَنْعَامُ إِلَّا مَا يُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ ۖ فَاجْتَنِبُوا الرِّجْسَ مِنَ الْأَوْثَانِ وَاجْتَنِبُوا قَوْلَ الزُّورِ﴾
[ الحج: 30]
“That (Manasik prescribed duties of Hajj is the obligation that mankind owes to Allah), and whoever honours the sacred things of Allah, then that is better for him with his Lord. The cattle are lawful to you, except those (that will be) mentioned to you (as exceptions). So shun the abomination (worshipping) of idol, and shun lying speech (false statements)“
Allah also said, describing the servants of al-Raḥmān:
﴿ وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَشْهَدُونَ الزُّورَ وَإِذَا مَرُّوا بِاللَّغْوِ مَرُّوا كِرَامًا﴾
[ الفرقان: 72]
“And those who do not witness falsehood, and if they pass by some evil play or evil talk, they pass by it with dignity.”
Abū Bakrah رضي الله عنه narrated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
– ألا أُنَبِّئُكُم بأكبَرِ الكَبائِرِ؟ قُلنا: بَلى يا رَسولَ اللهِ، قال: الإشراكُ باللهِ، وعُقوقُ الوالِدَينِ، وكان مُتَّكِئًا فجَلَسَ فقال: ألا وقَولُ الزُّورِ، وشَهادةُ الزُّورِ، ألا وقَولُ الزُّورِ، وشَهادةُ الزُّورِ، فما زالَ يقولُها حتَّى قُلتُ: لا يَسكُتُ.
“Shall I not inform you of the gravest of the major sins?” We said, “Yes, O Messenger of Allah.” He said, “Associating partners with Allah and being undutiful to one’s parents.”
He had been reclining, then he sat up and said, “And indeed, false speech and false testimony! Indeed, false speech and false testimony!”
He continued repeating it until I thought, “He will not stop.”
[Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 2654; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 87]
The Prophet ﷺ also gave a severe warning regarding a person who knowingly makes a false oath in order to take the right of another Muslim:
– مَن حَلَفَ على يَمينِ صَبرٍ، يَقتَطِعُ بها مالَ امرِئٍ مُسلِمٍ، لَقيَ اللهَ وهو عليه غَضبانُ، فأنزَلَ اللهُ تَصديقَ ذلك: {إنَّ الذينَ يَشتَرونَ بعَهدِ اللهِ وأيمانِهم ثَمَنًا قَليلًا} [آل عمران: 77] إلى آخِرِ الآيةِ. فدَخَلَ الأشعَثُ بنُ قَيسٍ، فقال: ما حَدَّثَكُم أبو عبدِ الرَّحمَنِ؟ فقالوا: كَذا وكَذا، قال: فيَّ أُنزِلَت، كانَت لي بئرٌ في أرضِ ابنِ عَمٍّ لي، فأتَيتُ رَسولَ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم، فقال: بَيِّنَتُك أو يَمينُه، قُلتُ: إذًا يَحلِفُ عليها يا رَسولَ اللهِ، فقال رَسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم: مَن حَلَفَ على يَمينِ صَبرٍ، وهو فيها فاجِرٌ، يَقتَطِعُ بها مالَ امرِئٍ مُسلِمٍ، لَقيَ اللهَ يَومَ القيامةِ وهو عليه غَضبانُ.
“Whoever swears a binding oath by which he wrongfully takes the property of a Muslim will meet Allah while He is angry with him.”
Then Allah revealed in confirmation of that:
{إنَّ الذينَ يَشتَرونَ بعَهدِ اللهِ وأيمانِهم ثَمَنًا قَليلًا}
“Indeed, those who exchange the covenant of Allah and their oaths for a small price…”
[Āl ʿImrān 3:77], to the end of the verse.Then al-Ashʿath ibn Qays entered and said, “What did Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān narrate to you?” They replied, “Such-and-such.”
He said, “It was revealed concerning me. I had a well on the land of a cousin of mine, so I went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He said, ‘Your evidence, or else his oath.’
I said, ‘Then he will swear to it, O Messenger of Allah.’
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
‘Whoever swears a binding oath, while knowingly lying in it, by which he wrongfully takes the property of a Muslim, will meet Allah on the Day of Resurrection while He is angry with him.’”
Imām al-Dhahabī رحمه الله included false testimony among the major sins and said:
قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى: ﴿وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَشْهَدُونَ الزُّورَ﴾ الْآيَةَ، وَفِي الْأَثَرِ: عَدَلَتْ شَهَادَةُ الزُّورِ الشِّرْكَ بِاللَّهِ تَعَالَى مَرَّتَيْنِ، وَقَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى: ﴿وَاجْتَنِبُوا قَوْلَ الزُّورِ﴾.
Allah, the Most High, said:
“And those who do not bear false witness…”
And it is reported that false testimony was equated with associating partners with Allah, the Most High, twice.
Allah, the Most High, also said:
“And avoid false speech.”
شَاهِدُ الزُّورِ قَدِ ارْتَكَبَ عَظَائِمَ
“The false witness has indeed committed grave offences.”
He then explained that the false witness commits several serious wrongs: he lies and fabricates; he wrongs the person against whom he testifies, whose wealth, honour or even life may be affected by his testimony; he also wrongs the person in whose favour he testifies by helping him obtain what is unlawful; and through his testimony he violates what Allah has made inviolable of people’s wealth, blood and honour.
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said:
وَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ يُبَالَغَ فِي عُقُوبَةِ هَؤُلَاءِ؛ فَإِنَّ الْفُقَهَاءَ قَدْ نَصُّوا عَلَى أَنَّ شَاهِدَ الزُّورِ يُسَوَّدُ وَجْهُهُ؛ بِمَا نُقِلَ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يُسَوِّدُ وَجْهَهُ، إِشَارَةً إِلَى سَوَادِ وَجْهِهِ بِالْكَذِبِ، وَأَنَّهُ كَانَ يُرْكِبُهُ دَابَّةً مَقْلُوبًا إِلَى خَلْفٍ، إِشَارَةً إِلَى أَنَّهُ قَلَبَ الْحَدِيثَ، وَيُطَافُ بِهِ يُشَهَّرُ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ أَنَّهُ شَاهِدُ زُورٍ.
“The punishment of these people should be made severe. The jurists have stated that the face of the false witness is to be blackened, based upon what has been transmitted from ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb رضي الله عنه: that he would blacken his face, as an indication of the blackness brought upon his face through lying. He would also have him mounted backwards upon an animal, as an indication that he had turned the account upside down, and he would be paraded around and publicly exposed among the people as a false witness.”
Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān حفظه الله was asked about a person who gave false testimony which resulted in another person obtaining a right that did not belong to him. He replied:
4 Fasl 4: On the Severe Danger of Perjury and the Conditions for Repentance
In the Religion of Islam, lying in a court of law, bearing false witness (Shahadat al-Zur) is among the most destructive of the major sins. Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan (may Allah preserve him) has clarified the immense severity of this crime and the strict stipulations required for one’s repentance to be accepted.
هذا شيخ، شهدتُ زورًا مع شخصٍ صديقٍ لي في سنةٍ ماضية، وندمتُ على هذا العمل، ونال هذا الشخص حقًّا ليس من نصيبه، ومضت السنوات على ذلك، وقد تبيّن لي خطئي، فماذا أفعل؟
الجواب — الشيخ صالح الفوزان حفظه الله:
أنت أخطأت، شاهد الزور عليه إثمٌ كبير، شهادة الزور عُدِلَت بالشرك بالله عز وجل.
فعليك أن تُخبِر؛ إن كان القاضي حكم بشهادتك، فلا بد أن تراجع القاضي، وأن تخبره بذلك، ليُعيد النظر في حكمه.
وإن كان ما وصلت إلى القاضي، فلا بد من إيصال الحق إلى صاحبه الذي أُخذ منه، مع التوبة إلى الله عز وجل.
Question:
“O Shaykh, I bore false witness for a friend of mine in a previous year, and I have regretted this action. Due to this, this person gained a right that did not belong to him. Years have passed since then, and my error has become clear to me, so what should I do?”
Answer – Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan (may Allah preserve him):
“You have made a mistake. The one who bears false witness carries a grave sin; bearing false witness is equated with associating partners with Allah the Exalted (Shirk). Therefore, you must inform [the authorities]; if the judge issued a ruling based on your testimony, you must go back to the judge and inform him of this so he can reconsider his judgment. And if it did not reach the judge, the right must be returned to its rightful owner from whom it was taken, along with repenting to Allah the Exalted.”
Abu Anas lied before a judge. Yet, he has never returned to that judge to confess his false witness and rectify the record. Without this, how can his Tawbah (repentance) be considered valid according to the conditions laid out by the scholars?
This raises a vital question for those endowed with intellect: Which Shaykh issued a fatwa permitting a Muslim to lie in a court of law? Was it Shaykh Bukhari? Was it Dr. Arafat? According to Dr. Arafat, Abu Anas initiated this lawsuit upon the advice of scholars like Shaykh Ubaid (may Allah have mercy on him). While the scholars may have advised him to seek his legitimate rights, did any of these noble scholars advise him to commit perjury or false witness to win his case?
Absolutely not. To suggest otherwise is a grievous slander against the people of knowledge.
Indeed, his perjury or false witness before a judge is not an isolated anomaly, but rather the manifestation of an established pattern of deception.
As noted by other Salafi Shaykh’s at Makthaba Salafiyyah: if an individual easily commits perjury or false witnessin a court, nothing prevents him from lying to the scholars, misrepresenting the affairs of the Muslims, or spreading falsehoods in private and public.
And this is exactly what has occurred in reality.
It is a known fact that Abu Anas has a dark history of transmitting lies to the scholars. He previously spread fabrications to Shaykh ʿAbdullāh regarding Abu Iyad. Furthermore, during the tribulations of the COVID-19 pandemic, he translated and misrepresented some of Abu Iyaad’s speech which he then forwarded to Dr. Arafat. This reckless and deceptive action ignited a massive Fitnah (tribulation) among the Salafis, severely affecting the brothers at Makthaba Salafiyyah in the UK (Salafi Publications).
A man who thinks nothing of lying to a judge will certainly not hesitate to deceive the inheritors of the Prophets to split the ranks of the Muslims. Such individuals are either exposed in this life or disgraced in the next, unless they sincerely repent.
5 Fasl 5: A Clarification on the True History of Makthaba Salafiyyah
To fully comprehend his deception, one must understand the historical reality of Makthaba Salafiyyah, which proves his deep involvement:
1. The Origins and the Name:
To understand the evolution of this entity, one must examine their own documented history. A public declaration released by Maldives Salafis on their initial website, Daarus Sunnah (http://dhaarussunnah.com), in December 2011, clearly establishes the reality of the Daʿwah during that era. The document stated:
“Salafiyya was introduced to the Maldives around 2002. Currentlythere are around four toulab al-‘ilm, who received their education from Madina University and around 300 Salafis in Maldives. Therewere two or three toulab al-‘ilm of Salafiyya who recently deviatedfor various reasons. Due to the few toulab al-‘ilm in and otherconstraints, dawah work is much limited.Alh’amdhulillaahi, currently there are five Salafi students in Madina University.With regard to connection with Salafi scholars and sheikhs : Some of our Salafi brothers have attended Salafi activities such as the ‘Five Pillars Umrah’ by Salafi Publications and the Birmingham Summer Conference of 2011. During Hajj and Umrah trips, they have also sought private audiences with Sheikh Rabee, Sheikh Muhammad bin Haadi, Sheikh Abdullah al-Bukhaari. Close contacts are being maintained with the latter two scholars. In addition, Sheikh Abdhullaah al-Ma’re al-Adhani visited the Maldives mid 2011.
Salafis do not have any centre or masjid. Much of the duroos are held in masjids or in private homes. Permission to use the Masjids are given on renewable basis for a period of three months and thatis also strictly to teach ‘Ministry of Islamic Affairs approved’ books. Though Salafiyya is still at a nascent stage in the country, it is slowly spreading from the capital island into the outer atolls.”
Because they possessed no dedicated physical center, Abu Anas and his companions were restricted to delivering lessons in the sitting rooms of private homes and under strict regulations in the mosques. It was from this constraint that the need for a unified effort arose.
While the initial digital presence was operated under the name Daarus Sunnah, it was following detailed advice and close consultation with Shaykh ʿUbayd, Shaykh Abu Khadeejah of Salafi Publications, and other Salafis, that the unique title ‘Makthaba Salafiyyah’ was formally proposed and adopted. This identifier was chosen specifically to serve as the defining name for the center and its activities, directly linking its methodology and efforts with Makthaba Salafiyyah of Birmingham (Salafi Publications).
2. The Digital Expansion: In June 2011, the Makthaba Salafiyyah Maldives (@SalafiMV) social media account was established to propagate the Daʿwah. As stated publicly by the Makthaba page in December 2019, it was a platform providing religious content since 2011.
Furthermore, during a conference in December 2019, Rifad openly stated in the direct presence of Abu Anas: “We use the name Makthaba Salafiyyah to convey the Islamic message based on the Noble Qur’an and the Sunnah…”
3. The Physical Center and Homeschooling: Operations later moved to a two-storey building on Lonuziyaarai Magu.
- The First Floor: Functioned as a registered tuition center (Tarbiyyah Learning Centre), officially under the name of Ahmed Tawfeeq, a Madinah University student.
- The Second Floor: Served as a Salafi Library, office, and Daʿwah center operated directly by Abu Anas and Rifad.
This location also functioned as a homeschooling center, teaching GCSEs alongside Islamic Studies. This initiative was sparked directly by a lecture Abu Anas delivered at the Social Centre, where he strongly warned against sending Muslim children to mixed-gender schools. Yet, astonishingly, Abu Anas continued to send his own children to mixed-gender schools, never enrolling them in the very Tarbiyyah Learning Centre (unofficially Madrasah Salafiyyah) that was established upon his own admonition.
4. The Dissolution, the Fitan, and the Reality of the Name:
With the enactment of the Education Act (Act No. 24/2020), strict regulations rendered the homeschooling model unviable, leading to the center’s definitive closure. Consequently, no physical center bearing the name Makthaba Salafiyyah has existed since that time.
Then came the trials (Fitan). The internal Shura group—which had been established around 2015 to govern these affairs collectively—completely dissolved in 2020 amidst the severe disputes and tribulations surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the matter of vaccines. The unity that once bound the Shura members shattered, and the Salafis in the region generally fell into a state of disunity and fragmentation.
Following this collapse of mutual consultation (Shura), the remaining elements of the Daʿwah apparatus fell under the unilateral and sole control of Abu Anas monopoly and some business men. After the original Twitter account was suspended in 2019 and a new one was created, the remnants of Makthaba Salafiyyah existed purely as a digital entity (the website, Facebook, X) and through localized dars activities—all of which were monopolized and tightly controlled by him alone.
Furthermore, it must be understood that even when the physical center existed during that period, the appellation “Makthaba Salafiyyah” operated much like a Kunya (an agnomen) or a descriptive title. It possessed no official (government) recognition or legal standing. Rather, it was merely an identifier utilized by the brothers to distinguish the Daʿwah activities and its online presence. It is a known principle that a descriptive title or Kunya can be shared or adopted by anyone, and since it was devoid of formal legal registration at the time, any individual possessed the right to legally register it.
Conclusion:
The reality is manifest, and the evidences are clear. The claim that Abu Anas had “no connection” to Makthaba Salafiyyah is a deception proclaimed in a court of law, undermining his integrity and trustworthiness.
As for the claim that I have “unlawfully seized” the various accounts, then this has also been proven false, and sadly, these allegations appear to have been strategically timed.
There is also a broader observation that must be made after considering everything that has taken place.
Looking back over these events, one of the recurring problems I have witnessed is a conflict between administrative control on the one hand, and consistency upon principles, truth, and justice on the other.
This is something I have alluded to earlier in this article. Over the years, I have seen a lack of consistency in how certain standards are applied. Matters that were accepted, overlooked, or never treated as serious while a person remained within a particular administrative line can suddenly become major accusations once that person begins to disagree, acts independently, or refuses to simply follow the directions of particular individuals.
This raises an important question: Is the real concern adherence to principles and the truth, or is it keeping people under control and ensuring that they remain in line?
If an affair is genuinely one of manhaj, principle, truth, or justice, then the same standard must be applied consistently, regardless of who is involved and regardless of whether that person agrees with us administratively or personally.
A principle does not change merely because a person ceases to comply with us. Nor should something that was tolerated while a person remained in agreement suddenly become a serious accusation once he differs or begins to act independently.
Truth is not determined by administrative positions, personal relationships, influence, wealth, leadership, or who possesses control over a particular institution, platform, or group.
Likewise, justice requires that the same standard be applied to ourselves, our friends, and those with whom we disagree.
Allah, the Exalted, says:
﴿ ۞ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَىٰ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْأَقْرَبِينَ ۚ إِن يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقِيرًا فَاللَّهُ أَوْلَىٰ بِهِمَا ۖ فَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا الْهَوَىٰ أَن تَعْدِلُوا ۚ وَإِن تَلْوُوا أَوْ تُعْرِضُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا﴾
[ النساء: 135]
“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do.“
From what I have personally witnessed, this lack of consistency has been one of the underlying problems in these affairs.
At times, the concern has appeared to be less about establishing the truth upon clear and consistent principles and more about maintaining administrative control, keeping individuals within a particular line, and reacting against those who no longer submit to that influence.
If people are treated favourably while they remain compliant, but accusations, isolation, and attacks begin when they cease to comply, then one has to seriously ask whether the dispute is truly about principles at all.
A principle is only truly a principle when it is applied consistently — whether it benefits us or goes against us.
The truth must remain the truth, and justice must remain justice, whether it is for us or against us.
This is why I do not believe these matters should be reduced merely to disputes over who controls a Facebook page, Telegram channel, website, or administrative structure. The deeper issue is whether we are genuinely willing to follow the truth and uphold justice when doing so goes against our own interests, friendships, loyalties, or positions of authority.
A Final Note on What May Follow
I am aware that people will respond differently to this clarification.
Some will look at the evidences and documents presented here and understand why this matter had to be clarified. If this helps some brothers recognise what took place and protect themselves from further confusion, then that is one of the main reasons I have written this.
Others may continue defending Abu Anas regardless of what is presented. Excuses may be made, such as saying that there was some maṣlaḥah behind it, or something similar.
Some may also leave the actual evidences aside and turn against me personally, accusing me of causing fitnah or attacking a person of daʿwah. I am aware that this may happen.
There will also be people who do not know the details of these affairs and who may continue taking knowledge from him. I do not expect one article to make every person examine the matter or accept what has been presented.
But my responsibility is not to force people to accept my conclusion. My responsibility is to clarify what I know, present the evidence available to me, and warn where I believe a warning is necessary for the benefit of the Salafi daʿwah and the brothers.
What has been presented here can now be examined by anyone who wishes to know the reality. Let the matter be judged upon the evidence, not upon personalities, loyalties, friendships.
In closing, I ask Allah to forgive me if I have written anything incorrect or gone beyond what is just. I have tried to speak with truth and justice according to what I know and what I have witnessed.
After seeing this man and those around him spreading lies upon lies, I felt it necessary to write and release this clarification. This article was initially written in April 2026, but I am releasing it today, August 2026, by the will of Allah.
By writing this, I seek the pleasure of Allah and hope that He will aid the Salafi daʿwah and Ahl al-Sunnah, make the truth clear, expose falsehood, and enable me to deal with those who lie and oppress with justice, without transgressing the limits.
I ask Allah to accept whatever is correct in this writing, forgive whatever mistakes it may contain, and make it sincerely for His sake alone.
سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك أستغفرك وأتوب إليك
وبالله التوفيق والسداد
وصلى الله وسلم على نبينا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه ومن تبعهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين
