That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on Covid-19 update. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Today's statement coincides with the publication of the revised strategic framework for tackling Covid, so I will set out the key elements of the new framework and explain what it means for our collective response to Covid now and in the months ahead. At the heart of the framework is a desire for and increasing confidence in our ability to achieve a sustainable return to a normal way of life, even as we remain prepared for future threats that Covid may present. I will start today by describing our updated strategic intent and approach. This new approach will see us resort much less, hopefully not at all, to legally imposed protective measures. Instead, we will rely predominantly on vaccines, treatments and sensible public health behaviours and adaptations. However, much as we might wish it was not the case, Covid is still a public health risk here and globally, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, so we must also remain vigilant and prepared. To that end, I will also outline how we will categorise and respond to future risks, including from new variants. I will explain why our decisions must be based on a combination of data, evidence and judgment. Thirdly, I will give our assessment of the current situation in Scotland in light of recent data and set out an indicative timescale for lifting or converting to guidance the small number of legally binding measures that still remain in place. Finally, I will set out our commitment to continued access to PCR and lateral flow testing, free of charge, while we transition to a system of testing that is more targeted but retains adequate capacity to support surveillance, rapid response to the emergence of new variants, effective outbreak management and access to the best care and treatment for those who need it. I will also confirm our advice that those testing positive for Covid should continue to self-isolate for now. On the issue of testing, I must express frustration at the UK Government's position. It is, of course, for the Prime Minister to decide how best to tackle Covid in England. However, current funding arrangements mean that, while taxpayers in all four UK nations contribute to the costs, it is decisions taken for England that determine the resources available to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for testing and other Covid measures. As of now, we have no clarity on how much of the Covid testing infrastructure the UK Government intends to retain, no clarity on how much investment will support it in future and no clarity on whether the Treasury will provide additional resources or demand instead that funding is taken from elsewhere in the health budget. I hope that we do get that clarity soon so that we can then set out in more detail our own longer-term approach to testing. However, and I will say more on that later, I want to give an assurance now that the Scottish Government is determined to retain our robust testing system, capable of providing Scotland with strong resilience against future Covid threats and firmly aligned with public health advice and the principles underpinning our national health service. Let me turn now to the key points in detail, starting with our revised strategic approach. In earlier phases of the pandemic, it was important to try to eliminate Covid or suppress it to the lowest possible level, because then we did not have vaccines or treatments to protect against the serious illness and death that the virus can cause. That is why our objective initially was to suppress the virus to the lowest possible level, though we modified that somewhat last year. In today's update, it is modified further and now expressed as follows, to manage Covid effectively, primarily through adaptations and health measures that strengthen our resilience and recovery as we rebuild for a better future. That change is possible because widespread vaccination coverage and better treatments have reduced the direct harms of the virus. As a result, using restrictions to suppress infection is no longer as necessary as it once was. Given the wider harms caused by protective measures, it is no longer as justifiable either. The strategic framework therefore makes clear that in future we will seek to rely much less on legally imposed measures and more on vaccines, treatments and sensible adaptations and good public health behaviours. As a priority, we will continue to ensure the maximum possible availability and uptake of vaccination in line with expert advice. While the success of the vaccination programme has exceeded our expectations, there are still more than 600,000 people today over 18 who have had a second dose, but not yet a third or booster dose. There is more still to do to maximise uptake. We will also continue to extend the scope of vaccination. Last week, the JCVI recommended that all five to 11-year-olds, not just those at highest clinical risk, should be eligible for the vaccine. I can confirm today that vaccine appointments for this age group will issue from mid-March. To allow parents and carers to attend with children, most appointments will be in the evenings, weekends or during the Easter school holidays. Yesterday, we also accepted JCVI advice on protecting those at highest risk. It is now our intention to offer care home residents, those over 75, and anyone over 12 who is immunosuppressed, an additional booster six months after their last jag. This phase of the programme will also start in March, though the scheduling of appointments for individuals will depend on the timing of their initial booster or third dose. In addition to vaccination, we will also use the best available treatments for those who need them. There are already effective treatments available that reduce serious illness and death in those who have been admitted to hospital with Covid. Therapeutic medicines are also now being offered to patients who have not been hospitalised but who are assessed as being at greatest risk of needing hospital treatment. New oral antiviral treatments are currently being evaluated through a UK-wide study. We will make the best use of those treatments depending on what the evidence and expert advice tells us about their efficacy. Vaccination and treatment will play a major, perhaps the major, role in limiting the health harm caused by the virus in the months and indeed the years to come. However, it is also important to encourage and support people to adopt safe practices and to make basic adaptations that will help to keep us safe. The document that we are publishing today gives more detail on the kinds of behaviours and adaptations that will be encouraged in different circumstances. Those include enhanced hygiene across the general population and improved ventilation in workplaces and other settings. Especially when levels of infection may be higher, increased hybrid and flexible working and the use of face coverings in some indoor public places. It is less likely that any of those measures will be legally imposed in future but we will advise them for as long as they help to keep the virus under control and also help to protect those who are most vulnerable to it. It is also vital, of course, that we remain vigilant for new developments. It is, unfortunately, highly likely that the virus will continue to mutate and confront us with new and potentially more harmful variants in future. To identify and respond to such threats quickly, we will maintain a strong surveillance capability. We will set that out in more detail next month but, subject to the point that I made earlier about the overall resources available to us, our surveillance system will include extensive PCR sampling and processing capacity, wastewater sampling and genomic sequencing capability. We also welcome confirmation that the UK-wide Covid infection survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics will continue. It is essential, however, that it continues at scale and we will seek to work with the UK Government to ensure that this is the case. The surveillance capacity will help us to identify new threats rapidly. It will also help us to assess the potential severity of any new threat and to quickly determine the appropriate level of response. The strategic update that we are publishing today sets out a clear framework for any decisions that we may have to take in future in response to new developments. I want to stress that this is intended as a contingency. We do hope, of course, that we never have to use it. However, it does recognise the on-going challenge that Covid presents and sets out three broad levels of future potential threat, low, medium and high. It also offers illustrative examples of the type of protective measures that could be deployed in response to different threat levels and it may be helpful to illustrate that through some general examples. If a new variant emerged that was more transmissible and more severe—perhaps with the ability to evade vaccine or natural immunity—this threat would likely be classified as high. In those circumstances, we might advise people to limit social contacts for a period and to work from home where possible and we may introduce some temporary protections for high-risk settings. If a new variant was either more transmissible or more severe but not both—as is the case with Omicron—the initial threat assessment would likely be medium. In those circumstances, there may be a legal requirement to wear face coverings in some settings and we might issue guidance for businesses and service providers on reasonable measures to reduce the spread of Covid on their premises. Lastly, in the absence of a new variant or if a new variant was neither more transmissible nor more severe and if vaccines continue to be effective, the threat classification would likely remain low. Obviously, this is the level that we hope to reach and stay at on a sustainable basis. In those circumstances, there would be no legally imposed protective measures. Instead, we would continue to advise individuals and organisations to adopt sensible public health behaviours. It is important to stress that any decision about the threat level and what the appropriate response should be will be guided by data and evidence, but it is not an exact science. It will also by necessity involve judgment. That is because the kind of developments that we may face in future principally new variants will not be uniform in their potential impact. A new variant that is highly transmissible but less severe would obviously require a different response to one that was less transmissible but more severe. We must guard against a one-size-fits-all approach. That is why the framework does not propose fixed threat shoulders for action. For example, by stating that we will take certain predetermined steps if the number of cases rises above a specific level. Such thresholds may be superficially attractive because of the certainty that they appear to provide, but they pose a very significant risk of both under and over reaction. The framework that I have just described can be used to categorise our current threat level and therefore help to guide decisions in the coming period. I will return to that shortly. First, let me summarise the latest data and trends. Today, we are reporting 6427 new cases from lateral flow and PCR tests. 1,060 people are in hospital, 9 more than yesterday. 25 people are in intensive care the same as yesterday. Sadly, in the past 24 hours, 18 further deaths have been registered of people who, with Covid, under the daily definition. Again, my condolences go to everyone morning a loved one. Over the past week reported cases have fallen very slightly by around 1 per cent. They have fallen in all-age groups under 45 and risen in all-age groups over 45. The latest available data shows that hospital admissions have slightly increased again from 619 in the week to 11 February to 654 in the most recent week. Total hospital occupancy has also increased again, and we will obviously continue to keep a close watch on that. The number of people in intensive care with Covid-25 continues to be relatively low. In summary, we continue to face a very highly transmissible variant that is causing a high level of community infection. However, while it is far from harmless, its overall impact is less severe than Delta. Using the framework that I described earlier, we assessed the current threat level to be medium. However, assuming the level of infection and its associated impacts—for example, hospital admissions—falls or broadly stabilises, we would expect that to be reassessed as low in the period ahead. That has enabled Cabinet to agree this morning an indicative timescale for lifting or converting to guidance—the small number of legally imposed protective measures that remain in place at this stage. I can confirm firstly that the Covid certification scheme, requiring certain venues and events to check the vaccine or test status of attendees, will come to an end next Monday, 28 February. The app that supports the scheme will remain operational, however, so any business that wishes to continue Covid certification on a voluntary basis to reassure customers will be able to do so. Second, as of 21 March, assuming no significant adverse developments in the course of the virus, we expect that the legal requirement to wear face coverings in certain indoor settings and on public transport will be converted to guidance. We will continue to strongly recommend the wearing of face coverings in shops and other indoor public places and on public transport. We also expect on 21 March to lift the legal requirement for businesses, places of worship and service providers to have regard to guidance on Covid and to take practical measures set out in the guidance. The legal requirement on businesses and service providers to retain customer contact details is also expected to end on 21 March. Governments obviously must act lawfully, which means that we cannot impose legal restrictions when it is disproportionate to do so. As the situation improves and the severity of the impact from Covid reduces, we are therefore duty bound to remove legally imposed restrictions. That should not be taken as a signal that Covid no longer presents any risk to health, because it clearly does. Even though certain measures, for example, face coverings, may not be legal requirements in future, we will still recommend voluntary compliance as part of the range of behaviours that will help to keep us safe as we manage Covid in a more sustainable and less restrictive way. Let me turn now finally to testing. Testing has been and it will continue to be a vital part of our management of Covid. However, as the nature of the threat and our approach to managing it evolves, so too will our approach to testing. It is reasonable over time and barring adverse developments to move away from mass population-wide asymptomatic testing towards a more targeted system that is focused on specific priorities. Those priorities will include surveillance, rapid detection of and response to new variants, effective outbreak management, particularly in high-risk settings such as care homes and hospitals, and ensuring access to care and treatment for those who need it. However, it is vital that we make the transition in a careful and phased manner. In March, by which time, I hope, we will have more clarity from the UK Government on available resources, we will publish a detailed transition plan for test and protect, setting out our priorities in more detail and describing the scale of infrastructure that will remain in place for the longer term. The plan will also confirm the duration beyond the end of March of any transition period, during which the system will operate broadly on the same basis as now. The public health reasons for ensuring a careful phased transition from the current arrangements to a more targeted testing system are obviously the most important. However, we should also remember that hundreds of people in test and protect at testing sites across the country and in our processing labs, including Glasgow Lighthouse, have worked tirelessly to keep us safe over the past two years. Those decisions affect their jobs and livelihoods, a point seemingly overlooked by the UK Government yesterday. Let me record our thanks to them today and give an assurance that the Scottish Government will engage closely with them in the weeks ahead. As we do this work in the coming weeks and for the transition period, subject to one change that I will set out shortly, access to testing will continue on broadly the same basis as now. We will be considering separately advice for schools and health and care workers in line with expert advice. For the general public, let me set out clearly what that means from now until further notice. Firstly, if you have Covid symptoms, you should continue to go for a PCR test. Access to those tests will remain free of charge at testing sites across the country. Secondly, you should continue to make regular use of lateral flow tests, even if you do not have symptoms. The only immediate change that we are making to current arrangements on lateral flow tests for the general population is in our advice on the frequency of testing. Instead of advice to test before going anywhere to mix with others, we will, from Monday next week, revert to advice to test at least twice a week, and in particular if you are going to a crowded place or mixing with someone who is clinically vulnerable. Lateral flow tests will remain free of charge in the transition phase. Indeed, we consider it important, in line with the principle of healthcare free at the point of use, that they should remain free of charge for any circumstance in which Government recommends testing. That is a principle that we will seek to uphold in our longer-term plan for testing. I also want to emphasise that, in Scotland for now, we will continue to ask those who test positive for Covid to isolate for the recommended period, and we will continue to make self-isolation support payments available to those who are eligible. We will, of course, keep the recommended period of isolation under review, but it is worth stressing that isolating, staying at home when positive, with a highly infectious virus and the follow-up tracing that test and protect does, remains one of the most fundamental public health protections that we have available to us. It helps to limit transmission overall, and in helping to keep workplaces and other settings safer, it also provides protection for those who are most at risk of serious illness from Covid, enabling them to return to more normal lives as well. Covid is, unfortunately, still with us, and we must therefore remain vigilant and prepared for the threats that it poses. However, today's new framework is an important moment in our recovery. It marks the point at which we move away, hopefully sustainably, from legal restrictions and rely instead on sensible behaviours, adaptations and mitigations. A return to normality must, though, go hand in hand with a continuing determination to look after each other. All of us have a part to play in ensuring a safe and a sustainable recovery. I will close again by urging everyone to follow advice on getting vaccinated, testing as regularly as appropriate, wearing face coverings when required or recommended, keeping rooms ventilated and following hygiene advice. All of that still matters, even as we lift the remaining legal requirements. It is how we keep ourselves and each other safe as we recover from Covid and look forward now together to much brighter days ahead. The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 40 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business, and I will be grateful to members who wish to ask a question where to press their request to speak buttons now, and I call on Douglas Ross. Begin by saying that, as we debate this afternoon, the grave situation in Ukraine is at the forefront of all our minds. The Prime Minister has made a statement to the House of Commons that has rightly received cross-party condemnation for the actions of President Putin and Russia. For weeks, we have seen a build-up of activity and threats, but last night's statement from President Putin provided in the starkest possible terms the reality of what Russia is seeking to do. We must stand together supporting the UK Government, the Governments around Europe and across the world as they seek to deal with the current and future threats from Russia. Above all else, we have to make it very clear that we stand with the people of Ukraine. Turning to today's statement, we welcome the move away from blanket legal restrictions towards an approach based on public health guidance. Two weeks ago, the Scottish Conservatives published their own blueprint for living with Covid, titled Back to Normality. Our approach focused on personal responsibility, trusting the Scottish public to make their own adjustments to protect themselves and their families. When our plan was published, the health secretary claimed that it was reckless. Today, large parts of it have been adopted by the Scottish Government. They are moving face masks from law to guidance. They have finally scrapped vaccine passports and they are getting rid of mass testing. Government policy today is reckless two weeks ago. Her statement says that the Government is moving to a system of representative sampling away from mass testing. Why has the First Minister created a fight with the UK Government over the issue just weeks before her own plans to scale back testing anyway? Secondly, the First Minister just said in her statement, and I quote, using restrictions to suppress infection is no longer as necessary as it once was, and given the wider harms caused by protective measures, it is no longer justifiable either. So can the First Minister explain why her Government intends to extend the Covid powers that has at its disposal for a further six months until September, if it is no longer necessary or justifiable to keep restrictions in place or why it is necessary or justifiable for the Government to cling on to control over those powers and keep the threat of restrictions hanging over the public? And finally, throughout the pandemic, Scottish businesses have been left in the dark. They have been an afterthought for this Government. The document that is published today is a plan for living with Covid. So can the First Minister tell us, did she personally have discussions and consultations with Scottish businesses before publishing that guidance and document, and can she tell us what their feedback was? First, on the dreadful developments in Ukraine, the actions of Putin are utterly indefensible and he must face the most severe sanctions as a consequence of those actions. The announcement by the Prime Minister just a short time ago do not, in my view, go nearly far enough. He described the limited sanctions announced today as a first tranche. I think that it is essential that we see further tranches very soon with very severe sanctions imposed upon Putin and on interests in Russia. We must all, and I hope across this Parliament, we will be united in standing in solidarity with Ukraine and with the people of Ukraine as they defend their independence, their sovereignty and their territorial integrity. I am sure that that is something that will unite us across this Parliament and indeed across the country. Turning to the issues in my statement, Douglas Ross says that we have now done what he has asked us to do all along. He has paused to say that Douglas Ross, of course, opposed face coverings ever being a legal requirement. He opposed Covid certification ever being a legal requirement. He has, I think, opposed almost everything that this Government has done to try to control this virus and keep people safe from it. The Government will continue to take a responsible approach to steering the country through the virus. We will take decisions in a timely manner. We will be driven by the data, by the evidence and by the application of judgment. We will not follow an opportunistically thoroughly oppositionalist approach that has been recommended at every interval by the Scottish Conservatives. On the issues that were raised in detail, on testing, I think that it is a bit rich, I have to say, for Douglas Ross to accuse me of picking a fight with Boris Johnson, but we will leave that to one side for the moment. I have had many discussions with UK Government representatives over the past days on this issue. We all agree that, in time, we should move to a more targeted system of testing. The difference between the Scottish Government and the UK Government is that we think that we should do that on a careful, phased basis and that we should give great care and thought into the testing infrastructure that has been built up over the past two years that we retain for the future. To dismantle that in any significant way, I think, would be any excusable negligence given the threats that Covid still presents to us. Instead, we had an announcement from the UK Government yesterday of what they are stopping doing but no clarity on what they intend to retain or the funding that will be in place to support that. I think that that is deeply regrettable and we will continue to work with them to try to get that clarity so that we can set out our longer-term plans. We think that we should remain, retain testing on the current basis for a transition period and then, in a managed and careful way, move to a more targeted system but one that nevertheless retains the capacity and the contingency that we may need in future. In terms of issues around continuing to have contingency measures that we may use in future, Covid has not gone away. It is not the case that it simply disappears because we want it to. We may face—and the Chief Medical Officer for England, I heard making this point yesterday—it is highly likely that we will face new threats from this virus in the form of new and potentially more harmful variants. We need contingency measures in place. We need to make sure that we have laws that are fit for purpose and that is what this Parliament is currently scrutinising in terms of the coronavirus legislation and we will continue to do that. On the issue of business, my ministers engage with businesses on the detail of this, as is right and proper. We will continue to do so and we will continue to take appropriate steps to keep businesses safe while we keep the overall country safe. I am sure that there will be many people across this country who will just breathe a sigh of relief that Douglas Ross has not been in charge of those decisions. I associate the Scottish Labour Party with the comments about the situation in Ukraine and our determination, which I hope is shared across the chamber to defend them against Russian aggression. Boris Johnson's decision to dismantle the infrastructure that we rely on to keep Covid under control is premature, incredibly concerning and that it neglects and fails those who are most at risk from Covid. Those are the words of the BMA and on that we can surely agree. I have always expressed a desire, particularly at times of crisis, for both Governments in Scotland and the UK to work together in the interests of Scots, but instead we see conflict. At the start of this month, Scottish Labour published our plan for living well with Covid. It set out our priorities to keep people safe, provide them with certainty and build resilience into our services. Central to that is the continuation of testing, contact tracing and isolation. The First Minister talks about transition phase in which testing will remain free of charge. That appears up to the end of March. It is not clear from the statement what will happen thereafter, so could she set out her plans for focused testing? It is also not clear what circumstances the Government will recommend testing for. Is it going to be the same categories as the UK Government is using or are the different categories? Could she perhaps outline what the difference is? The First Minister also tells the chamber what constitutes a low, medium or high-risk threat level? Will it be based on numbers of those who are infected, hospitalisations or other data? In the interests of us all having a shared understanding and transparency, it is important that we understand how that will be determined. There is little mention in the framework about long Covid. That is affecting more and more people. It is especially a problem because their experience on the ground is not as painted within the framework. They are not getting access to services. At a time when people are looking for more certainty about the future, there are not yet answers to some of the fundamental questions that will be in place to protect Scots. We were promised a framework that appears more like a progress report. I appreciate that the First Minister is waiting for the UK Government to decide, but as public health is devolved, will she commit now to funding testing and contact tracing in order to protect the people of Scotland? There is no conflict on those issues. There is a UK Government that is failing to take decisions in an orderly and competent fashion, and that is the reality. As recently as Friday, we fully expected that yesterday the UK Government would set out in detail the testing infrastructure that it intended to retain in the funding that would accompany that. I had two conversations with Michael Gove yesterday. In between those conversations, a UK Cabinet meeting was postponed because they were still having conflict amongst themselves. I deeply regret that because it has a knock-on effect on Scottish Government decision making, and I hope that they get their act together quickly. Jackie Baillie is right to point to the fact that public health responsibilities are devolved, but that takes us to the very heart of the issue. Public health decisions are devolved, but decisions that determine how much resources available to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland flow only from public health decisions that are taken for England by the UK Government. That is a system that I do not defend, because I think that it is unacceptable and unsustainable, but it is a system that Jackie Baillie and her party unfortunately and regrettably do defend. If Jackie Baillie is not prepared to take my word for how unacceptable that is, perhaps she would listen to the Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, who makes exactly the points that I am making about the complete unacceptability of this position. I have said that we will continue to secure free access to PCR and lateral flow testing for a transition period. I have said today that I would expect that transition period to extend beyond the end of March. We will set out the detail during March, but before we can set out that detail, we need to know, based on the decisions that the UK Government will take, what resources are available to support that. However, the assurance that I can give is that that will be the maximum possible testing capacity and infrastructure. I do not want to see what we have created over the past two years dismantled, and I want to see the testing arrangements that we have fit for purpose and appropriate for the future. Will the categories of people who we routinely recommend testing for be the same as the UK Government? Will the UK Government have given clarity on what their categories will be so that I can answer that question? I have set out the broad priorities for testing and we will continue to develop the detail. I think that this is my last point on this. I think that, in line with the fundamental principle that I support, I think that Jackie Baillie's party supports—I am not so sure about the Conservatives—Healthcare-free at the point of use, any circumstance in which the Government recommends testing for Covid should provide those tests free of charge. That is a principle that we will seek to the best of our ability to uphold in any future strategy. I know that I have taken some time, but there were a lot of questions in Jackie Baillie's contribution. On the low, medium and high threat categorisation, I have set out in summary today in my statement, I have set out in more detail in the document why it would not be appropriate to rely on fixed thresholds of numbers of cases per 100,000 or numbers of people in hospital. That is because different threats do not have a uniform impact. It stands to reason that, if we face a variant that is very highly transmissible but less severe, such as Omicron, it will demand less of a response than a variant that is highly transmissible and more severe and puts more lives at risk. That is why, of course, we look at all that data, but we will have to continue to apply judgment to that. There is significant detail set out in the document around that, as there is on long Covid, which is a significant challenge and something that this Government and other Governments will have to respond to for some time to come. Thank you very much. On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, echo the support and solidarity that is expressed by all sides of the chamber for the people of Ukraine in this deepening crisis. Far from abolishing Covid-id card vaccine passports, the statement will normalise their use by some businesses. It will bake them into everyday life, perhaps indefinitely. From now on, venues will have carte blanche to ask for private medical information without a public health imperative for so doing. You can have a Covid passport and still have Covid. There is no comfort or reassurance to be offered by such a system. I ask the First Minister to revisit the assault on medical privacy and abolish it in totality today. Alex Cole-Hamilton does a disservice to his argument with the hyperbole that he uses in his language. That is a proportionate measure that businesses, after it is no longer a legal requirement, will have the choice of using or not. The app is there. Everybody can see the information that is available on the app. For every person that has contacted me to say that they do not agree with Covid certification, I have had at least one other person who has said that it makes them feel safer in going to places to know that people there are vaccinated or have recently tested. I think that there will be some businesses who see the advantage in still doing that in order to make people feel more confident about going and using their services and buying what they have to offer. That is about giving choice and making sure that we have a package of measures in place that collectively help to keep us safe as we continue to navigate our way through a challenge that, hopefully, is receding, but will continue to pose difficult times for us in the months and years to come. Stephanie Callaghan, to be followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you. This morning, UK health secretary, Sadra Javid, commented in Scotland taking a different approach to managing the effects of the pandemic than the Government at Westminster. St Scotland can, and I quote, pay for it in the same way that we pay for things in England. The Prime Minister said words to the same effect yesterday. I wonder if the First Minister can confirm whether that means that the Scottish Government will have the powers to borrow in the same way that the UK Government can to be able to spend and to deal with the public health decisions in Scotland. Those are really important questions. Traditionally, we may debate those things through a constitutional prism, and we will differ in that. Even if we do not approach that from a general point of view, that is about the best ways of dealing with an unpredictable public health challenge. Right now, the fact is that, through the Barnett formula, the only way money flows to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to allow us to discharge our public health functions is if the UK Government takes a decision that generates additional spending for England. If they do not take those decisions or if they take those decisions but do not provide any new money to support them, then there is no resource made available to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. I am not the only First Minister making those points. Mark Drakeford is making those points and the executive, which of courses is not functioning normally right now in Northern Ireland, makes those points as well. It is a basic fact. Of course, it is compounded by the fact that the devolved Administrations do not have borrowing powers, so anybody who wants this Parliament, this Government to be able to take public health decisions without being constrained by the decisions of other Governments on resources should support us in getting to a more sustainable way of dealing with those matters. I encourage people across the chamber to engage with those issues seriously. Jamie Greene, to be followed by Siobhan Brown. One of the emergency Covid powers that the Government is seeking to retain is ministerial power to release prisoners from prison on the grounds of public health, which itself is fine. However, when that power was last used during the pandemic, some 40 per cent of those early release went on to re-offend within just six months of that release. That is not one or two isolated incidents either. What happened, I am afraid, First Minister, is exactly what we warned might happen, and behind every one of those re-offences is a victim of that crime. Will that particular emergency power be ditched? No least is a token of apology to those who suffered the disastrous consequences the last time it was used. Firstly, we continue to take decisions in a proportionate way. If a further future action was necessary, ministers would set out specific criteria for which prisoners could be released. That would exclude types of prisoners that raised particular concerns. Indeed, since that power was created in April 2020, it has been used only once. The bill, which will undergo full scrutiny in this Parliament, only extends this temporary power. It does not make it permanent, as I understand it. The equivalent power in England is permanent—that is not the proposal here. It is about making sure that, whether on this issue or in a range of other issues, we have at our disposal the means to respond proportionately and flexibly in the face of public health challenges. I heard Ailey MacHarg, a professor of public law, say recently—and I think that it is worth quoting her—that there is a difference between having access to emergency powers and using those powers. There is a better opportunity now to design an effective framework than there would be if powers were to be acquired urgently again in the context of another health emergency. That is about making sure that our law is sensible and gives Governments with appropriate scrutiny from Parliament the ability to respond to such emergencies. Siobhan Brown, to be followed by Pam Duncan-Glancy. Can I ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to tackle health misinformation, especially in relation to the Covid-19 vaccinations? We continue to work with colleagues across all four UK nations to make sure that we are sharing learning and intelligence, and that applies in particular to the learnings from the vaccination programme. That work includes monitoring, misinformation and disinformation that could adversely affect the success of the programme and proactively sharing information about such campaigns with stakeholders once we are aware of them. Research has shown that Governments who directly challenge conspiracy theorists can be counterproductive, although I do not think that we should ever rule that out. That is often because conspiracy theorists use such attacks as validation of their world view. Our policy in this is shared by other Governments is to continually provide the public with information with reliable sources of truth about the vaccine, such as our own website and the information that is available on NHS Inform. All MSPs and all politicians have a role to play in helping to ensure that we tackle misinformation and disinformation, and that we encourage people to take up the opportunity of vaccination whenever it is available to them. A constituent recently contacted me after they were wrongly administered four times the dose of the Covid-19 Pfizer vaccine in one sitting. Despite UK Government guidance stating that any person who is given more than the recommended dose should be monitored and treated for symptoms, my constituent only received one phone call following this event. She was not monitored at all in the days following the error, despite displaying negative symptoms and having repeatedly reached out to health services. I do not believe that the Scottish Government is doing enough to support hard-working NHS staff and patients when this situation reflects that. Does the First Minister agree with me that the NHS is in a critical condition, that it is critically under-resourced and that that has resulted in patients not receiving the care and attention that they deserve, and will she ask urgently to address that? I do agree that the NHS is under significant pressure, and we are working hard with the NHS to ensure that it can address that pressure, recover from Covid and get back on track in a whole range of ways. I do not think that I could conclude from what I have heard in the question that those pressures are responsible for the individual situation that has been narrated. Although that does, of course, sound unacceptable, I would be happy to ask the health secretary to look into that in more detail if Pam Duncan-Glancy wants to send me the details of it. The arrangements for what should happen in the very, very small number of cases where errors are made in the administration of vaccine are clear, and those should be followed. If that has not happened in this case, obviously we would want to ensure that the relevant health board reflects on that. If the details are sent to my office, I will ensure that that happens. The announcement of the new £180 million Covid economic recovery fund targeting support for businesses and communities is very welcome. Can the First Minister provide any further information about the flexibility that local authorities will have to ensure that that funding can be best used to maximise economic recovery in their respective areas? I thank Evelyn Tweed for the question. The £80 million Covid economic recovery fund, which I set out yesterday, will give councils the ability to consider the needs of local businesses, communities and indeed households within their local areas and let them target support and maximise economic recovery as we move into this new phase of the pandemic. We have given councils the flexibility on how to use this money. They may give money to individual businesses but also support initiatives such as Scotland Loves Local Business Improvement Districts or some place-based investment programmes as they see fit and in ways that they think best contributes to recovery from Covid. I know that the flexibility has been welcomed by local authorities and by COSLA, and I think that the money will go a long way, as I was hearing from businesses in Edinburgh yesterday, to help them with that recovery process. On behalf of the Scottish Greens, could I also associate ourselves with the solidarity shown across the chamber to the people of Ukraine? Do the UK Government's decision to scrap the requirement to self-isolate and scale back free testing will undermine Scotland's ability to recover from Covid? It also signals the abandonment of a four-nation approach, as well as people who were previously asked to shield. How can they protect themselves from the virus if they do not know where it is? What steps can the Scottish Government take to mitigate the risk of being posed to clinically vulnerable people and ensure that they continue to be protected and supported? This is a really important issue. Let me stress again and emphasise that we are not changing our advice to people who test positive. That advice remains that they should isolate for the recommended period. We will keep the recommended period under review, but it is important that people, when they are positive with this highly infectious virus, stay at home to reduce the risk of infecting others. That has always been in guidance in Scotland rather than in law. I think that it is well understood and we are not changing that position. Crucially, though, unlike the position outlined by the Prime Minister yesterday, we will retain self-isolation support grants for those who are eligible to help people to do the right thing by isolating. I think that that is one of the most basic, but also one of the most important things that we can all agree to do. The converse of that, of course, would be saying that it is fine for somebody who tests positive with this highly infectious virus to go to work as normal or to go shopping as normal or to go to pubs and restaurants knowing that that would then allow the virus to circulate and infect others. That would be counterproductive overall in terms of our efforts to control the virus, but it would make all those settings much less safe for people who are highly vulnerable and at highest clinical risk. As we return to normality, it is really important, as a matter of principle, that we all get to return to normality. We do not create a situation where those of us who do not have other health conditions or are not frail by virtue of age, for example, have to continue to effectively shield, although those who are not in that position can go about our normal conduct, but those who are have to effectively shield. Let's all continue to do the basic, important public health things to keep the country as safe as possible for everybody so that we can all get back to normal as safely as possible. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's erroneous claim yesterday about immunity, in order to continue to help to protect the Scottish population, what would the monthly cost be to the Scottish Government to provide the testing kits free at the point of need, and would that be borne solely from the health budget? Those are details that we continue to work through ourselves but also with the UK Government. There is no doubt at all that the testing system that we have in place right now is very expensive and resource intensive. The UK-wide cost is about £15 billion per annum, but it is important that we recognise the cost of not delivering a testing system that is fit for purpose and helps to guard against those risks in future. We want to be able to provide an appropriate testing system in Scotland, one that provides free access to testing to people who need it, aligned with the purposes that I spoke about in my statement, allows us to have proper surveillance, respond to outbreaks and make sure that those who most need it get access to care and treatment. That is what we will be working on, but we need to see that the UK Government provides the clarity that it has not done yet in order for us to set that out in detail. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Government yesterday announced the final allocation of Covid-related funding for businesses hit hard by her Government's restrictions in December. Despite that, many businesses are still being overlooked and have little or no support, so all the First Minister therefore urgently looks into those two areas. The support given to outside catering operators such as Joe's Kitchen in East Lothian, who despite losing £42,000 in orders in December, secured only £1,000 in support, and close contact businesses such as Pure Spa and Beauty, which despite employing 130 people at 12 locations across Scotland, qualifies for a grant of only £1,500. What we have done is, as a result of the announcement yesterday, we have given money or will be giving money to East Lothian Council that will allow them, using the flexibility that councils often ask us for, to consider whether the businesses that the member has mentioned there would merit that kind of funding. It is not given the stage where at for the Government to step in and make those decisions for councils. We have given councils the balance of funding so that they can make those decisions based on what they think is right for their areas. I am sure that the member will engage with the local councils on behalf of the excellent businesses that he has just mentioned in the chamber. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many households in Scotland are already facing financial pressures as a result of the pandemic, compounded by the additional pressures arising from Tory cost of living crisis. What clarity has the Scottish Government received from the UK Government that the consequentials that are announced on 3 February are above the position that is outlined in the spring budget revision? We know that the position that we expected to be in at the end of the year is not as good as we hoped it would be and that the consequentials from the measures that the Chancellor set out to address cost of living have not flowed through into a net increase in the Scottish Government's budget. The finance secretary set that out when she presented the final stage of the budget just before recess. She continues to discuss with the UK Government and the Treasury in particular the year-end issues so that we can present a final position to Parliament as soon as possible. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has announced the final tranche of £80 million of the original £375 million of business support funding that was initially announced back in January, but that was to deal with Omicron. Given the urgency that many of those businesses will face, when does the First Minister expect the £375 million to be fully paid out in the hands of businesses? The change of regulation into guidance for public safety measures such as Facebook will be welcome. There may be some confusion given the on-going recommendation to where face coverings are. Will there be updated guidance and information to avoid that confusion? Yes, there will be updated guidance and we will ensure updated marketing campaigns and public awareness campaigns to help people to understand the changes that I have announced today. That is a very reasonable point to raise. On the issue of funding, members often call for us to give local authorities more money and the flexibility to spend it. I think that we have rightly given the balance of funding to local authorities to ensure that flexibility. On the rest of the money, that is flowing to businesses right now. For example, if we look at the management information on the local authority-delivered funds for hospitality and taxis, of the almost 23,000 applications received so far, almost 22,000 have been paid out. There are a range of other schemes that are administered by Creative Scotland, for example, and that money is also flowing to businesses. We will continue to work with stakeholders responsible for delivering that to ensure that all of it gets to the businesses that need it as quickly as possible. Experience tells us that significant public health issues remain prevalent even after a pandemic has ended. For example, instances of strokes and heart attack increase after every flu season. Infection of the brain can occur in patients with measles, and I have a friend who is still suffering from post-pollos syndrome some 65 years after illness. Given that, does EFM share my concern that the potential removal of wider infrastructure by the UK Government will therefore impact on important data gathering and may ultimately condemn more citizens to the longer-term consequences of Covid-19? That is an important point. We must recognise the possible longer-term impacts of Covid, including on heart disease and stroke. We continue to work with Public Health Scotland for example to understand the wider impact on the population as deeply as we can, but it will be some time yet before we properly fully understand the impacts of the pandemic. That also underlines the importance of continuing to be very vigilant about any future threats that the pandemic presents for us, because it will also have long-term consequences. The heart of living with Covid, which is the phrase that we hear more and more, must be that very robust and very developed system of surveillance, so that we can identify new risks very quickly and respond quickly to those new risks to minimise the impacts that they have on the population. I hope that our discussions with the UK Government in the period ahead will allow us to have the clarity that enables us to set out our plans for a longer-term testing infrastructure that meets all those needs. The £2 million that was announced last week for the event sector is welcome, but it covers all events in Scotland, meaning independent music festivals may be shortchanged. It has been suggested that festivals are caught between the events and culture funding streams, with neither quite fitting the bill. Will the First Minister consider creating a dedicated fund for Scottish music festivals to encourage festivals, artists and audiences back to Scotland? I will take that point away and give it consideration, but it is likely to be whether there is anything that we can do within the funding that was already announced. In addition to that, the money that we announced yesterday for local authorities gives local authorities additional flexibility to meet the needs of any businesses, organisations or events that have not been properly catered for by some of the other funding streams. Therefore, local authorities will have the ability to look at music festivals in that context. Beyond that, I will take the point away and give some further consideration and ask the minister to write back to the member in due course. Christine Grahame, to be called by Jeremy Balfour. Douglas Ross refers to personal responsibility, but my supermarket at the weekend was more than one group without face coverings by no stretch of imagination where they all exempt so much for their personal responsibility. Will the First Minister then remind us all that wearing face coverings in public places, lateral flow testing, isolation and not for you, but for others? Protecting not only family and friends and work colleagues, but more importantly, people that you pass by who you will never know and indeed may be very vulnerable to the virus that you may give them? That is possibly the most important point to make as we go into this next phase. Governments can impose legal restrictions that are not proportionate, which is why we are lifting the legal restrictions, but that does not mean that the risk of the virus has gone away. Therefore, we will continue to encourage voluntary compliance. The point that Christine Grahame makes is absolutely correct. We do all those things, whether it is wearing a face covering, get vaccinated, test regularly, obviously to protect ourselves, but we also do it to protect others, to protect those around us and particularly those around us who may and we may not have knowledge of this, who may be clinically vulnerable and who may be at very serious risk, even with vaccination of serious illness or death if they get this virus. Therefore, doing all of these things is about solidarity, it is about looking out for each other, it is about looking after each other, and that becomes more important as we go into this next phase. I encourage everybody to continue to do all the right things for all the right reasons. Minister, the guidance around the 1m rule still applies. That is affecting universities and our schools reopen more, which will affect the ability for parents to go in. Will the 1m rule be reviewed and when will it be reviewed? First Minister, we are intending, assuming that there are no adverse developments between now and then, to lift on 21 March the requirement for businesses to take account of Government guidance and to take all practical measures to reduce the risk of infection in their premises. We will continue to update guidance to give businesses and other organisations the right steer on what to do. We would anticipate moving to a position where none of those things are legal requirements for businesses or for others. However, as we have just been talking about in terms of individual behaviour, businesses, for obvious reasons, will want to operate in sensible ways that allow them to keep their staff and their customers safe. We will continue to engage with businesses about the nature of that over the coming weeks. As we lift Covid requirements, households will continue to face significant financial pressures as a direct result of the pandemic, compounded by additional pressures arising from the Tory cost of living crisis. On 3 February, the UK Government announced spending for England to tackle such pressures. What clarity will the Scottish Government receive from the UK Government that associated Barnett consequences will provide additional funds overall to Scotland compared with Scotland's spring budget revision to allow Scotland to tackle such significant household pressures here in Scotland? Those outside the chamber may not see it, but the Conservatives' Bentley seems to think that the cost of living crisis is something to laugh about. I do not think that there will be many people across the country who share that view. I would encourage them to have some more respect for the difficult circumstances that people face. It is the case that, as is very often the case, what the Treasury appears to announce does not translate into actual money for the Scottish Government. The UK supplementary estimates published today confirmed that the Scottish budget is receiving £17 million less than the Treasury had provisionally indicated before the Chancellor's cost of living announcement. That is one of the things that we have come to expect from the Treasury. We will continue to work with the UK Government to try to get maximum support for people across the country who are really suffering as a result of the pandemic, as a result of the other factors driving up the cost of living, which may be, unfortunately, exacerbated by developments in Ukraine. There is undoubtedly much more action that we need to see the Chancellor take in the days and weeks to come. Paul O'Kane, to be followed by Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In anticipation of the announcement and, indeed, in response to many people who have disabilities or are immunosuppressed and their carers, have expressed worries about what this new framework could mean for them and their loved ones, and have expressed frustration about the lack of dialogue for them with the Government. What engagement has the First Minister and the Government had with people who have a disability? Carers and the organisations that represent them. In the preparation of the framework, I will commit to further engagement in the coming weeks. We have a significant engagement with stakeholders representing people who are more at risk, and that will continue. It is because we recognise that issue that we are, even as we lift legal restrictions, continuing to recommend basic protections and mitigations. It is why we think that access to testing continues to be important. It is why we think that any of us who test positive should continue to be asked to isolate to reduce the risk for those who are most vulnerable. We all have to recognise that the desire to get back to normal, understandable though it is, has to be tempered by the understanding that, for those at greatest risk, anxiety is very real, so we can all behave in a way that reduces the risk that people face and hopefully reduce that anxiety. The Scottish Government will continue to take those considerations very much into account as we take decisions in the future about the handling of the pandemic overall. I know that the First Minister agrees that everyone should be able to benefit from a return to greater normality and no one should be left behind. Like other MSPs in the chamber, I have constituents who previously had to shield or were vulnerable as a result of not being able to get the vaccine. They are feeling a bit scared at the prospect of restrictions being lifted and what that means for their quality of life. I ask the First Minister what further assurances she can give to them that, unlike the approach being taken by the UK Government, their wellbeing is being taken into account as protections are relaxed. Further to my last answer, let me just give an assurance again that we are considering, have considered and will continue to consider people at the highest clinical risk in every strand of the phased approach that we are taking to managing the pandemic. There are a number of practical ways in which we give life to that, so people at higher risk continue to be prioritised for vaccination. Our testing programme continues to support the effective management of Covid. People who are at a higher clinical risk may also benefit from the new treatments that I have been identifying. I set some of that out in my statement and, as I said in my previous answer, we are also continuing to encourage and to recommend to everybody across the country to adopt safe behaviours and practices that help to keep those most vulnerable as safe as possible. That, from day one, has been a collective endeavour. We have all had to look out for each other and look after each other. Even as we go into, hopefully, Camer waters of this pandemic, that remains the case. I urge everybody, however frustrated you may be, about wearing a face covering or having to isolate when you test positive to continue to do those things, because they are about the protection of those who are most vulnerable in our society. That concludes First Minister's statement, Covid-19 update. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business.


In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, and all praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon Muhammad and his family and his followers. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon their enemies forever and ever. May the peace and blessings of Allah and his family be upon their enemies forever and ever. My dear brothers and sisters, we talked and spoke about the difficulties that the messengers and prophets of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala and their successors and their families had to go through just because they were sent to guide mankind on the face of this earth and they represented Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala who sent them down with these messages. And that these messages were mainly there to protect mankind and to guide them towards the right path. These messages were not there to deprive mankind of their lives or their livelihood or to take away anything of their lives. But these messages are there and were there and will be there for the good of mankind. So they lived life in this world in the best of ways, in the best of protections, in the best of rights and their rights will be protected and it will protect their lives as well until they leave and depart this life and Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala want them to live in the hereafter forever in the paradise and the gardens that Allah had allocated for every single one of us. And we recited some of the verses that describe the position and the purification that Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala had granted and purified the progeny of the Holy Prophet of Islam. And amongst the narrations that we discussed in the previous episodes was that the narration that Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa alayhi wasallam narrated that Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala had three sacred sanctities and whomever protected those sacred sanctities Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala was going to protect their religion, their life in the hereafter and their life in this life and whomever neglected to protect those sanctities Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala will neglect and will not grant his protection. And we explained that there were individuals at the time of the Holy Prophet of Islam that were hypocrites, were muraafiqeen amongst the so called Muslims that used to live in the city of Mecca and Medina especially specifically in the city of Medina. There were individuals who had embraced Islam just because of their worldly interests and desires. They saw Islam and they saw the position of Prophethood and being a messenger or being representative of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala and leading the Muslims in this life. They saw it to be as if it was a monarchy. It was a leadership contest that they wanted to take or succeed the Holy Prophet after him and become the next monarch or the next king or the next emperor. And this is what actually did happen. After numerous occasions during the 21 years that Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam on many occasions on many different platforms and many locations in Mecca and Medina did actually speak about the position of his successor and his cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib and the fact that Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala had chosen him to be his leader and the imam and the Khalifa after the Holy Prophet peace be upon him and his Holy Project. But there were those individuals who did not take those statements and those words seriously. They thought and they actually believed that Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam the Holy Messenger of Islam was actually making those statements just to position and to give power and to give leadership to his cousin. Those individuals, those hypocrites did not actually believe in the Prophethood of Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam. They were just Muslims by name.  But inside their hearts they did not actually practice or believe in Islam. That's why we will come to see and read from the authentic narrations that they themselves narrate. The other schools of thought narrate in their books and the books that they actually follow and believe that they are authentic and their authenticity is 100% these narrations and what actually these individuals, those hypocrites who came and stole leadership of Ali ibn Abi Talim and they threatened and they frightened the people of Madinah and the household of the Holy Prophet and they killed many just for the sake of seeking leadership and assuming power upon the Muslims. In the book Al-Aqdel Farid, now I mentioned these historical books and these references for our brothers and sisters to go and research. Those who might not have heard these narrations before. Brothers and sisters, I narrate to you these references and please go and read and check because upon going and investigating and opening these references you will come to understand those individuals who came in the name of Islam and who came and forced people by the power of sword to pay allegiance to them and sat upon the shoulders and the necks and the heads of the Muslims and assumed leadership and they did not deserve by any means to be leaders upon the Muslims they did not have the knowledge, they did not have the attributes to be leaders upon the Muslims on which grounds these individuals came and assumed leadership and they moved away those who leadership was meant for them. They cleared them away, they forced them, they terrified them, they terrorized them and they attacked and killed and shed their blood just for the sake of assuming power and leadership and sitting on the throne that they had sought to sit on in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet Many of them participated in assassination attempts to kill the Holy Prophet when these assassination attempts did not succeed until the last assassination attempt succeeded when Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa alaihi wasallam fell ill and those hypocrites who were in the house of Rasulullah in the house of Rasulullah, they were in the house of Rasulullah they were amongst of the closest of individuals to the Holy Prophet they played a role to assassinate the Holy Prophet Rasulullah had ordered all the Muslims to go out and join the army of Osama and he cursed the one that does not attend and joined the army of Osama the group of those hypocrites who stayed behind and did not engage and join in the army of Osama just for the sole reason of continuing and completing the assassination attempt of the Holy Prophet of Islam in the book Al-Aqdel Farid, Juz'at Ithnian Juz'at No. 2 page No. 250 and in the book Tariq ab El Fida Juz'at 1, Chapter 1 page No. 156 wa a'laa bin Nisaa Chapter 3 page 1207 this narration is narrated and Abu Bakr Umar bin Al-Khattab said to them if your father killed them or killed them and Umar was killed by a fire that hit them in the house so Fatimah alaihi salam alaihi salam alaihi salam is from me so she said to him if your father was killed by a fire that hit them in the house he said yes or he entered into what his mother entered into now what is this narration about after the hypocrites poisoned the Holy Prophet of Islam now here I am cutting everything very short I am compressing all the historical events in this very minute session and I leave everything to you you can go and investigate and read and research in these references that I had mentioned so we come to understand what really actually happened when Rasulullah fell ill and he ordered that no one should give him any type of medicine the two women the two wives of the Holy Prophet upon orders from their fathers they came when the Holy Prophet of Islam had lost consciousness they came and placed Ladud which is a type of medicine they put under the tongue or the side of the mouth of the ill patient and they had actually poisoned that piece of medicine and that occurred when Rasulullah was unconscious they poisoned the Holy Prophet and the Prophet's health deteriorated more and more until he became a martyr and departed this life Rasulullah was taken by Ali ibn Abi Talib for preparation for burial for washing, for ghusl, for tekfeen shrouding and burial in the process of these three days all the monafiqi and the hypocrites they came in the area called Saqifat-Bali Saida they brought the heads of the clans and the heads of the Muslims and they positioned Abu Bakr ibn Abi Qohafa to be the so-called leader of the Holy Prophet of Islam and they claimed that this decision was made by the shura by the gathering, by the committee of the heads of the Muslims whilst they knew and they had heard the Holy Prophet even in the last moments of his life Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa alaihi wasallam had advised and had reminded and ordered the ummah, the nation and had pinpointed the individuals to follow Ali ibn Abi Talib as he is going to be the successor after and the majority of those individuals who participated in that so-called election process who was not valid, who was wrong from the beginning they were present in the event of Ghadir khum Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa alaihi wasallam ordered the Muslims halfway between Mecca and Medina in the area called Ghadir khum to call all of those individuals who had passed them and to wait for all of the Muslims to reach that area and the Holy Prophet of Islam stood there in the middle of the heat of that desert in the middle of the day and delivered a sermon, a speech in which he recited this verse Al-Yuhum akmal tu lakum dinakum wa atmamtu aleykum ni'mati wa radhi tu lakum al-Islam ad-Dina and today I have completed for you your religion and that day Rasulullah upon orders from Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala he conveyed to the Muslims that that all Muslims Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says I have to convey to you this statement and the fact that Ali ibn Abi Talib is your emir and your mullah and Khalifa after me and Rasulullah the Holy Prophet of Islam in Ghadir khum recited this prayer Allahumma wali man walah wa adi man aadah wansur man nasrah wa khzul man khadlah laa man kuntu maulah fa hadhaa ali yur maulah Allahumma wali man walah wa adi man aadah and the Holy Prophet stayed there for 3 days and the Muslims and all the leaders of the Muslims and the tribes came and paid allegiance they shook the hands of the Holy Prophet and they shook the hands of Ali ibn Abi Talib to pay allegiance and to bear witness that Ali ibn Abi Talib is going to be their leader after the Holy Prophet of Islam coming back to the city of Medina after the demise and the martyrdom of Rasulullah while Ali ibn Abi Talib and a group of Bani Hashem the close relatives of the Holy Prophet and the sincere companions like Salman and Miqdad and Ammar and a handful of the sincere companions of the Holy Prophet were busy preparing the body of the Holy Prophet for burial and the final farewell there were a group of people occupied and busy in the election process to elect someone to be their leader upon choosing Abu Bakr ibn Abi Kuhafa to be their leader runfully Ali ibn Abi Talib stayed indoors because everyone knew that Ali ibn Abi Talib was the cousin of the Holy Prophet and if Ali ibn Abi Talib and Bani Hashem do not come out and pay allegiance to the so called elected leader of the Muslims that this leadership is not worth anything hence Abu Bakr ibn Abi Kuhafa sent on many occasions to some narrations 13 times he sent delegations and he sent individuals to the door of Ali ibn Abi Talib pressurizing Ali ibn Abi Talib and those in the house of Ali ibn Abi Talib to come and pay allegiance but Ali ibn Abi Talib did not accept those statements until I recited to you this narration where Abu Bakr sent Abu Bakr ibn Al Khattab and Abu Bakr sent Abu Bakr ibn Al Khattab and the group of people that he had sent with Umar and if this time you go to the house of Ali and you say to Ali ibn Abi Talib and the companions that are with him in the house that Abu Bakr says you have to come to the masjid to pay allegiance to him that he is going to be the leader and if they disobey you and if they deny that request you should fight them and fight them and accept them here is the scenario and this is as I said narrated in the references of the books of the muslims in Al-Abdul Fareed Tariq Abul Fidaa Al-Alam Al Nisaa and many other books and accept Umar ibn Qabasir ibn Al-Nar in the final time eventually Umar ibn Al Khattab came carrying a torch, a fire and he came so he can burn the door burn the house upon them and his wife Fatima came to the door and she said ibn Al Khattab or Umar and she came to burn the house have you come to burn the house this is the same house that Rasulullah as I said in the first episode for six months he used to stand by the same door holding on to the handles of the door he used to recite this very verse indama yuridullah liyudhehima anikum al-ridhsa ahle al-mayt wa yitahirakum tatheera everyday for six months the same door of Umar have you come to burn this house we are the family we are one of the sacred sanctities that Rasulullah that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala had asked Muslims to protect do you not say that you are a Muslim show you are a Muslim prove to everyone that you are a Muslim if you say you are a Muslim then where is your protection of the sacredness and the sanctity of the relatives of Rasulullah how come you are carrying a torch of fire and you have come advancing towards my door and you want to burn the house before my head ya bnal khattab a jaita letuhriqa darana listen what he replies qala naab aw tadkulu fee maa dakhala feehe all you do as the other people have done they came and paid religious and that was done by force they forced people they forced them that if you do not we will kill you wa fee tariqa ttabari ttabari is one of the books heavily relied upon by the other schools of thought juz'u tla'atha juz'u nabba 3 page nabba 198 and in the book in the reference al-imama wa siyasi juz'u nabba 1 page nabba 13 in the reference sherh ibn abil hadid al mu'tazini chapter 1 page 134 it says that da'a bil hatabi wa qal called upon people to bring wood and said these wood will burn upon you this house aw la taqhru jannah ila al bay'ah wa qal alaykum aw la taqhru jannah ila al bay'ah aw la taqhru jannah ila al bay'ah aw la hareqannah alaban fiha fa qale lirrajul and he was told aw amar inna fiha fatima fatima tzahra is in the house aw amar this is the daughter of Rasul Allah ila fiha fatima fiyaqul and he was rated saying and so what so what she is fatima who cares I want khilafat I am here for the sake of leadership and eventually they burnt the door of fatima tzahra fatima tzahra stood behind the door and upon them noticing that fatima was behind the door and the wall they crushed fatima tzahra they squeezed fatima tzahra and they pushed the door upon fatima tzahra until one of the nails in the door pierced through the chest of fatima tzahra fatima tzahra alayya as-salam was pregnant with the brother of Hassan al-Hussein the third son of Ameer al-Muqineer by the name of Muhsem all of these calamities started here when they stood by the door of fatima tzahra and they burned the door and they crushed fatima tzahra between the door and the wall and the nail pierced into the chest of fatima tzahra and fatima tzahra because of the kicking and the beating she received from Omar ibn al-Khattab and the companions of ibn al-Khattab fatima tzahra miscarried the third son of Ali ibn Ali by the name of Muhsem they killed the child of Ali ibn Ali fatima tzahra miscarried Muhsem and he died there and there and they broke the ribs of fatima tzahra they slapped fatima tzahra fatima tzahra fell upon the ground unconscious they came inside the house they took, they captured Ali ibn Ali Talib they tied the ropes of his sword upon his hands and they started pulling Ali ibn Ali Talib towards the mosque what was the reason that those individuals who in the life of the Holy Prophet called themselves Muslims who were required to protect the sanctity and the sacredness of Ahlul Bayt as Allah swt had ordered them to what caused them to come and stand by the door of fatima and burn down the door and attack her and cause her to miscarry the son of Ali ibn Ali Talib the grandson of the Holy Prophet hence these days, mu'mireen all over the world they sit down and mourn the death of the Muhsem the martyr they attacked and were the cause of the death of fatima tzahra but they killed there and there the first person from the lineage of fatima tzahra Ali ibn Ali Talib to be killed by the hands of those so called hypocrites who stole leadership and khilafah from Ali ibn Ali Talib they killed the grandson the third grandson of the Holy Prophet of Islam and the calamities and the problems and the tragedies started befalling upon the household of Rasul Allah upon Fatima tzahra upon Ameer al-Mu'mineen upon Hassan al-Hussein from that day onwards there became two groups two parties those who were close to the Holy Prophet the family of the Holy Prophet Ameer al-Mu'mineen and the so called individuals who congregated in the Saqifah Ashab al-Saqifah the people of the Saqifah and from that day onwards these two groups were a point where mu'mineen and muslims were tested upon they are either going to stand with Ali ibn Ali Talib or going to take sides with the Ashab al-Saqifah the companions of the Saqif I urge my brothers and sisters whom had not heard and whom have not read these narrations from these references go and investigate do not keep believing these false information that you hear from right left and center go and investigate go and read research and listen maybe one day you will come to understand the truth and the reality of what happened to the Holy household of the Holy Prophet after his mu'mineen and this is praise be to Allah the Lord of the worlds and peace be upon you