“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, of what you do, Aware.” (Qur’an 4: 135)
﷽
Sometime back this Daw’ah preacher claimed that he confronted a man who yelled out racial slurs at him. Subsequently an altercation happened and Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq claimed that he had been stabbed.
Unfortunately there are blatant click bait and out and out lies being propagated all over YouTube: Titles such as: “Sheikh Uthman attack caught on tape.” and so forth. However, no such video’s has been shown of any actual stabbing.
Here is the video of the claims made by Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq and our analysis.
There are several core issues just in this video alone.
- The Core Contradiction: “Peaceful Dawa” vs. Physical Confrontation
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq frames his park activity as purely peaceful: “we go out and give our peacefully we just share information about Islam.“ Yet he also describes:
- Telling the man “come and face me” while driving.
- Conveniently claiming he was stopping for gas when he just told the man to “come and face me.”
- Admits to “Punching him” during the altercation.
- Challenging him to “stand and fight like a man”
This is not consistent with a passive, informational outreach posture. Approaching an aggressive stranger’s vehicle and escalating to a physical exchange directly contradicts the claim of peaceful conduct. The speaker frames his punch as reactive, but he also describes himself as the one who closed distance (“I went closer to him“).
2. “He Tried to Attack Me” vs. “I Punched Him”
The sequence is internally muddled:
- First: “he tried to attack me physically and you’ll see the altercation”
- Then: “even though I punched him and he was too cowardly to fight me like a man he took a knife”
If Uthman Ibn Farouq punched him before the knife appeared, then the speaker’s punch preceded the weapon escalation. This means Uthman Ibn Farouq escalated to physical violence first. The “cowardly” framing (refusing to fight unarmed) is inconsistent with Uthman having initiated the physical exchange by punching. Uthman Ibn Farouq wants both “I was attacked” and “I punched him first” to coexist.
3. “His Attack Did Nothing to Me” vs. “I Went to Urgent Care”
Uthman Ibn Farouq states: “his attack did nothing to me I went to the Urgent Care and alhamdulillah I’m perfectly fine there is no issue.”
Going to Urgent Care implies a perceived need for medical evaluation. This creates a tension with “did nothing to me.” More significantly, if a knife attack occurred and left no injury, that is plausible, but the Uthman Ibn Farouq’s confident “there is no issue” sits awkwardly with the seriousness he otherwise assigns the incident (police report, detectives, “you’re not going to get away with it“).
4. “I Don’t Need Security” vs. Ongoing Threats
Uthman Ibn Farouq insists: “I don’t need any security I don’t need anything else I have Allah and Allah will protect us.“ Yet he also says this is not the first attack (“just like the other person who tried to attack us at the park”), that he has filed a police report, that detectives are on the case, and that he is publicly warning the attacker he will be caught. Claiming complete confidence while simultaneously treating the situation as an active criminal threat is a practical inconsistency. Though not necessarily a logical one, since trust in divine protection and use of legal means can coexist. Still, the rhetorical framing (“I need nothing“) clashes with the extensive legal apparatus he describes invoking.
5. “We Have Your Face / You’re Not Hiding Enough” vs. “He’s Not Going to Get Away With It”
He asserts both that he has clear evidence (face, weapon, recording) and that the attacker might evade capture (“if he’s watching don’t think you’re gonna get away with this“). If the evidence is as conclusive as claimed, the warning is redundant; if the warning is necessary, the evidence may be less conclusive than asserted. This is a rhetorical rather than factual inconsistency, but it weakens the certainty of the claims.
Notice that Uthman Ibn Farouq says: “You’ll see the altercation”
This is the key phrase. “Altercation” is a somewhat elastic word (it can mean a verbal confrontation, a scuffle, or a fight), but in context especially after “he tried to attack me physically” and immediately before “even though I punched him” The natural reading is that the video would show the physical exchange: the attack, the punch, the knife.
The phrase “you’ll see the altercation” overpromises. What the video apparently shows is the lead-up (the man exiting the car, verbal exchange, profanity) not the physical confrontation Uthman describes (the punch, the knife attack, the chase).
Uthman’s account of the physical sequence: “he tried to attack me physically… I punched him… he took a knife and tried to cut me… he ran from me“ is not corroborated by the footage he himself promised as proof. He is asking the audience to accept the most serious claims (knife attack, punch) on his word alone, while the video evidence covers only the verbal/approach phase.
6. Selective Invocation of “The Law Should Work for Us”
Uthman says: “we will use the means of the law that is in the land because the law should not only be against us it should work for us.” This implies prior experience of the law being used against him but he also presents himself as a victim with an uncomplicated police report and cooperative detectives. The grievance about legal double standards is asserted without support and sits in tension with his description of normal law-enforcement responsiveness. Uthman also may have inadverdantly admitted to assaulting first. In fact, all that he describes shows Uthman escalating rather than descalating.
Islam teaches us that we should try and descalate tension. The whole incident certainly worked the algorthim to the advantage of Uthman Ibn Farouq’s youtube channel and himself personally.
This is Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farouq a day after the attack.
We can confirm that in the video above was taken at: Brikho Fuels 1606 Market Street Gas Station, San Diego
Notice the Blue Rubbish bin with the graffiti on it.
Uthman Ibn Farouq claims in his initial posted video the following:
“When I stopped at a gas station to put gas in my car. He parked up top. I went closer to him and I told him, “If you have something to say come say it to my face.”
“When I saw him come out of the car I recorded.”
In his second recording a day after the event he states:
The day-after video the closest in time to the event uses only the generic “attacked” and makes no claim of being stabbed or injured.
This is certainly at odds with his claim in the second video: “We’re not going to respond to your ignorance with ignorance“
“for the haters we’re not going to respond to your ignorance with ignorance we’re going to respond with wisdom.” No! Uthman Ibn Farouq here you are lying through your teeth!
What do you call esclating conflict rather than De-escalation. That is certainly not wisdom!
Look at where the actual gas pumps are as opposed to wear the actual blue rubbish bin is with the graffiti.
San Diego street lights are profilic with security cameras and every gas station has its own security cameras. Do you see the third picture above? Forget that the man has a face mask on. If he was in a vehicle those plates are captured. This is easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Now, while San Diego is moving toward shutting down its network of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and associated cameras provided by Flock Safety and Ubiquia they were certainly active in the time of this incident.
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farouq Reveals all. Outs himself as a complete fraud and a serial lying.
The thing about lying is you either tell the truth and come clean or you have to tell more lies to cover up the other lies.
@3:30 Uthman Ibn Farouq says:
“Wwe’ve had threats called in all that we’ve had two actual physical attacks both of them caught on video alhamdulillah both of them reported to the police the first one that we had the man was arrested and he was sentenced and alhamdulillah that was done with the second one we had the man was also caught on video and he was also arrested and we’ll talk about that.” -Uthman Ibn Farouq
Prima Qur’an responds: This is the way with these Salafi types. They lie through their teeth. There is no released video footage of the man at the gas station attacking Shaykh Uthman ibn Farooq.
Who was recorded it Shaykh Uthman ibn Farooq? What kind of Olympian are you that you can fight a man who apparently stabbed you all the while recording it at the same time?
@5:03 Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq says: “Oh no was a fake now alhamdulillah I had many news organizations you know not as many as should have but many of them that did reach out to me after the talk and I shared some of the information some of the documentation with some of them including Al jazeera and they published the story alhamdulillah and if any actual news organization like CNN Fox MSNBC or whatever I guess Fox is a news organization anyway um would like to interview me about this the actual incident I’m willing to share all the details.”
But guess what! Why didn’t Al Jazeera which is a reputable and professional news organization not share any of this alleged documentation? Not even a shred of it!
The report itself does not question the authenticity of the incident; it is merely a one-sided account of his narrative.
“Provided information to Al Jazeera”: From the report content, what he provided to Al Jazeera was his own video and oral account, not police reports, medical records, or other documentary evidence. Al Jazeera’s report contains no verification of any independent source, and no mention of any case number or police record.
So why do you think he said that? He lied to his audience. The people who trust him, fund him and support him. He quoted Al-Jazeera to give an air of authenticity.
In fact, all anyone has to do is to follow up with Al-Jazeer as a journalist and ask the news agency in the interest of honesty, integrity and transparency did Uthman Ibn Farouq share with you ‘some of the documentation‘? -notice how vague he keeps his information.
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq continues:
“My Hospital report my release papers from the hospitals alhamdulillah I have from the county of San Diego paperwork as well and I’ll discuss this in a minute from the police department from all of them right but these people instead of coming out and talking to me or discussing you with me what do they do this islamophobic website it’s not a news organization this little islamophobic website sitting some guy sitting in his basement with and I checked the website it’s all articles against Islam Muslims are trying to take over City councils and thean and and and Muslim Brotherhood is trying to take over this and that nonsense they Google they Google a Google Maps picture where I’m at you know when I made my video the day after and then they tried to go to the city of San Diego’s Police Department not knowing I don’t actually live in the city of San Diego now let me explain about San Diego we have the city of San Diego then we have the county of San Diego those of you who know me personally and know where I live you know that I live in a city that is in the county of San Diego but not in the city of San Diego the city I live in has its own Police Department I’m not going to talk about it here because we do have a lot of violent threats and so on but those of you that know where I live you know that my address is not San Diego California right it is within the county of San Diego alhamdulillah I used to live in the city of San Diego currently I do not there are 18 cities in the county of San Diego Chula Vista San Marcos Escondido L Mesa Alone um carlbad Oceanside inas there are many cities many many national city they’re all cities within the county of San Diego they’re considered San Diego as a county each one has its own police department aloh has its own Police Department oceans has its own police Department by the way they don’t know this and so what they do they they call they mention the city of San Diego and they try to find the address and be like was there a report incident you know what if You’ reach out to me I’ve got from the San Diego County Probation Department even the paperwork showing what happened after the case was completed and I had shared originally the arrest reports with al jazeera and they had published it so no no need for all this but these guys have to to make up some kind of Lies they’ve got to find some way to try to discredit the amazing dawa that’s going on once again if any real new news organization does want to do an interview on this I’m open I have my paperwork I will bring it I will show the documentation and we can do it and alhamdulillah.”
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq thinks by stringing u a bunch of words together that the gullible will eat it up. He is simply proving the rope to hang himself, unfortunately.
Let’s examine his lies in this particular video one by one.
The first lie in this video.
“tried to go to the city of San Diego’s Police Department.” No trying they did go there and they got nothing.
Your response? You (Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq) try to obfuscate by mentioning several cities that exist in one country. So this becomes a guessing game. Which city did Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq actually report the incident to?
However, here is something that you (giving your own criminal past) must have forgotten about. It is one simple word: jurisdiction!
The second lie: His pretention in regards to who has jurisdiction over this alleged case.
The incident took place where Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq? It took place at Brikho Fuels, 1606 Market Street, San Diego), the agency with jurisdiction is the San Diego Police Department (SDPD)!
SDPD’s clear authority: The San Diego Police Department’s official website explicitly states that crimes occurring within the City of San Diego (including violent crimes such as assault and stabbing) should be reported to and handled by SDPD. For violent crimes involving physical assault, the website specifically notes that they cannot be reported online and must be handled through SDPD’s non-emergency hotline or in-person report
Source: (https://www.sandiego.gov/police/services/file-police-report)
His very strange comments that leave the observant reader puzzled.
“the city I live in has its own Police Department I’m not going to talk about it here because we do have a lot of violent threats and so on.”
What does that have to do with anything? How do you square that with:
First video posted above:
“I don’t need any security I don’t need anything else I have Allah and Allah will protect us.”
and in the video above:
“We’re not going to be punked we’re not going to be bullied we’re not going to turn the other cheek we’re going to let people know Muslims are not to be messed with.”
It sounds like you dont’ want to give the name of the city you live in. Which is irrelevant because the incident where it took place that is documented the SDPD does have jurisdiction over it.
The third lie: “I’ve got from the San Diego County Probation Department even the paperwork showing what happened after the case was completed.
This is contradicted by what he says next here:
@8:16
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq says:
“I’ll will give you good news inshallah inshallah we’re working on a documentary that’s going to be on a big scale about that one about my life and we’re going to have interviews with police officers with people who who were involved in this now I’ll give you a second piece of good news Not only was a man arrested but he confessed and he was and he through a plea bargain he took a sentence and he’s been arrested and he’s in jail and from the San Diego uh County court I have paperwork about this now not only am I going to forgive this man because for the sake of Allah we forgive people in inshallah I’m going to go and try to visit him in the jail that he’s in before he’s transferred to a prison and if I’m unable to meet him there I’m going to go to the prison where he’s at and I’m going to request to meet with him “
But wait a minute!
.He says the paperwork shows “what happened after the case was completed“ and references probation. But earlier in the same video he says the man “is in jail” and will be “transferred to a prison.” A defendant sentenced to state prison is not typically under county probation . County probation supervises county jail sentences and probation grants, while state prison commitments are supervised by state parole (CDCR). The combination of “county probation paperwork” + “he’s in jail, soon transferred to prison” is internally muddled about which correctional system the attacker is in.
He says the paperwork shows “what happened after the case was completed” and references probation. But earlier in the same OMF video he says the man “is in jail” and will be “transferred to a prison.” A defendant sentenced to state prison is not typically under county probation — county probation supervises county jail sentences and probation grants, while state prison commitments are supervised by state parole (CDCR). The combination of “county probation paperwork” + “he’s in jail, soon transferred to prison” is internally muddled about which correctional system the attacker is in.
Why These Are Mutually Exclusive
California’s correctional structure separates these tracks:
- County probation (San Diego County Probation Department) supervises defendants granted probation — typically a suspended sentence, or a county jail term served under probation supervision (realignment/AB 109). The defendant is not committed to state prison.
- State prison commitment means the defendant is sentenced to CDCR custody and, on release, supervised by state parole, not county probation.
A defendant is sentenced to one or the other. Either he is given a probation grant or a prison term. He is not simultaneously “on county probation” and “in jail awaiting transfer to state prison.” The two supervision systems are distinct, and the sentencing court picks one disposition.
The mismatch is not a minor slip; it shows the Uthman Ibn Farouq is lying. By assembling a narrative t rather than readingor recalling from a concrete case:
- “County probation paperwork” is invoked as a credibility prop. He claims a document that sounds official and checkable-sounding but is never produced (no case number, no court division).
- “In jail, soon transferred to prison” is invoked for dramatic effect. The attacker is locked up, and Uthman will visit him to give dawa.
- The two are never reconciled, because reconciling them would require specifying the actual sentence . Which would require the case number he refuses to give.
If he truly held the probation paperwork in hand, the disposition would be unambiguous to him: either the man got probation (and is in the community or county jail under supervision) or he got prison (and county probation has no file on him as a supervisee).
The fourth lie: He personally shared the documentation with Al Jazeera.
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq says:
“I’ve got from the San Diego County Probation Department even the paperwork showing what happened after the case was completed and I had shared originally the arrest reports with al jazeera and they had published it.”
Where is this? The Al Jazeera article is online for everyone to read Shaykh Uthman and it doesn’t contain any of this at all! You are are a liar. You are lying to the Muslim Ummah, you are lying to your fans, you are lying to people you invited to Islam, you are lying to people who support you financially.
The fifth bold faced lie. The lie of the timeline.
The Timeline Makes It Impossible
- Incident Date: Uthman himself claimed the stabbing occurred on March 24, 2022.
- Al Jazeera Report Date: Al Jazeera Mubasher’s report was published on March 26, 2022. That is only 2 days after the incident.
- Content of Al Jazeera Report: What Al Jazeera reported was merely Uthman’s personal statement at the time: he said he went to the emergency room, was “fine now,” and had “filed a complaint at the police station”. The report contained no mention whatsoever of any arrest, trial, or sentencing!
In other words, he retroactively injected “case details” that he never actually possessed into the Al Jazeera report, attempting to use Al Jazeera’s credibility to endorse a narrative that did not exist at the time!
The Legal Process Simply Cannot Move That Fast
Even if we set aside Al Jazeera, if the case truly progressed to the point of “probation paperwork” or “jail/prison,” the timeline is highly abnormal:
- Under normal circumstances, a felony case in San Diego courts takes from arraignment to trial approximately 68 to 85 days (if the defendant is in custody and all time limits are strictly followed).
- If a plea agreement is reached, a probation report typically needs to be prepared, usually taking an additional 2 to 4 weeks.
- The critical issue is: The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office has clearly stated that they have never received this case. Without prosecution, there is no plea, no sentencing, and no probation!
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farouqs failed promises.
@8:16 Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq says:
“I’ll will give you good news inshallah inshallah we’re working on a documentary that’s going to be on a big scale about that one about my life and we’re going to have interviews with police officers with people who who were involved in this.”
As of the current date (October 24, 2026), more than three years and ten months have passed since Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq first made the promise of a “documentary with police interviews” (around October 20, 2022). To date, there is no evidence that this documentary has been released.
Who is working on this documentary Shaykh Uthman?
Can we have the names of those individuals?
Which police officers have volunteered to come foward to talk about this case?
Can we have the names of those officers?
It is abundantly clear that Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq has not only obfuscated concerning the facts of this matter but it is now documented that he has bold faced lied to the public.
By the way the local media did try to reach out to Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq.
“Attempts to reach Sheikh Uthman on Friday were unsuccessful.”
We need to clean up the Daw’ah and everyone is claiming this is the case. But now it is time to take action.
The integrity of Islam is above the integrity of any one individual. The reason the above individuals or organizations were reached out to is that they have shown more integrity then others and are respespected by us.
If we want the face of daw’ah to change we cannot turn a blind eye when individuals in our community lie to the Ummah, lie to those they have preached to, lie to the Not yet Muslims, lie to their supports, lie to their financial backers.
To those individuals who felt lied to and betrayed by Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq we say to you this:
There is an understanding of Islam that takes Islam very seriously. An understanding that does not try to run cover for a liar becuase ‘he is one of us’. May Allah (swt) guide you to that understanding of Islam!
Other articles concerning Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq are as follows:
May Allah Guide the Ummah.
May Allah Forgive the Ummah.
