should we promote Daniel Haqiqatjou?

Learning Aqeeda is more important than Daniel realises. He thinks the biggest cause of apostasy is probably, let's say, atheism or liberalism but look how much apostasy will occur from deviants like deobandis (tariq masood is an example)- this is a hidden apostasy in that the person will continue believing himself to be Muslim and such people have widespread reaches (look also at people like hamza in relation to perennialsm and YQ and others in relation to the perpetual existence of the hellfire).

He also suggests that the chaos in the ummah today is due to liberalism but he doesn't see that the classical period when things were good were filled with sunni scholars refuting deviants- in fact, surely allowing proliferation of bidah leads to proliferation of sin and proliferation of sin leads to punishment in the dunya for the ummah... Which could partly explain what we see today. But Daniel wants to focus on... Zionism? As if we can't focus on both?

He also doesn't seem to explain what his Aqeeda is which is a bit suspect because... Are you not telling people so you don't alienate your fan base? Someone correct me if he explains, I can't be listening to this guy's 6 hour videos

Does he also ever refute his friends in the manner he refutes those he doesn't like? Speaking against free mixing is good but what about his pals Ali Dawah? And Hijab has even made some kind of TV show for his YouTube channel? These guys are all clowns really and seem less sincere the more famous they become

As for Andrew tate, look at the kufr he's been spewing and let me know if Daniel, Hijab and others have had enough time to retract their 'endorsements' of him.

 

And what do you get when you follow DH blindly?
You end up cheering Andrew Tate like mad and before you know you find yourself puking from the mouthful of filth and stupidity you accidentally swallowed on listening to this oh-so-brave-and-great convert wbo turned out to be not so great afterall.

If you watched the circus that went on for months with DH and Hijab on the beat - you will wonder how much maturity these kids have anyway.

 

He could have said: My knowledge of Kalam is limited and I don't find this lack a hindrance in my engagement with the non-Muslims. I think the arguments I am using are serving my purpose. Maybe if I did study Kalam I would get better arguments - I don't know. But at the moment I am not too focused on it. Allah knows best.

That would have shown humility and openness to being corrected or improved.

Rather than just dismissing it out of hand.

Don't forget that ulama have mentioned that the reason Ibn Taymiyyah fell into heresy was his arrogance - which came on gradually - as his popularity and following and influence increased.

nas'al Allahu 'aafiyyah

 

you beat me to it.

so here's another reason I find DH unsafe for sunnis.
He basically dismissed the entire Kalam corpus as 500 years old stuff - that has nothing to add to the contemporary discourse against non-muslims.

He even included "Atheism" in his list of issues that Kalam cannot address - or is a redundancy at best.

"Logic is taught in universities" - so you don't need study Kalam to argue with non-Muslims.

talk of jahal murakkab!

no wonder he calls the jahil wannabe philosopher "Jake Trantula" his "friend" and promotes his videos and he doesn't find pathetic devbandi sophistry cringe worthy.

------

Ok sir, kalam is obsolete - so where should we find material to defend Islam?
jus watch my videos and subscribe to my telegram channel.

Ohk. But where did _you_ get the material from?
I basically invented it all myself. You see I have a degree in philosophy and am practiced at debating - and besides I am very smart too!

I see But how do we know that your arguments are compatible with Islamic aqeedah? How do we know that you are not committing any blunders that will land your viewers into some soup of heresy?

Ah, you need not worry about that. Just check the comments on my debates and podcast. So many people find my arguments compelling - many non-muslims included. And many have converted to Islam because of my debates.

That's all very well - but that doesn't mean your arguments are theologically safe - the people watching you are obviously common people with no background in Islamic scholarship to mention.

Well, there are many scholars who support me - see mufti moola, mufti zameel, mufti wajdi - and othe da:ees too - see Muhmmad Hijab, Jake Whatever and ofc dilly hussain.

Hmm. quite a list - but are they all experts in Kalam and aqeeda to tell you if your arguments are not Islamically kosher?

Kalam is a 500 year old corpus. I have read it and I didn't find it particularly useful in modern context.

But isn't Islamic aqeeda relevant in modern context as well? How do you know that your arguments don't run foul of established aqeeda?

Well, basic Islamic aqeeda is very simple. Believe in Allah, the Books and Angles, Prophets and Qadar - and that's it. It's very simple to tell if my arguments go against these basics. What is deeper than this is. not my concern. You don't need Kalam for this.

But what if your arguments are ok only at surface but in essense they are incompatible with Islamic theology - how do we know without an assessment?

You get what you see - take it or leve it
----

That's DH for you - or atleast as I see it.

 

perhaps zameel should ask DH to translate shah abdul aziz fatawa from persian as he is a native persian.

 

Beautiful du'a Brother @Unbeknown. Ameen.

 

In this blessed month of rabi'-al-aakhir, on the occasion of the Gyarawih Shareef, I pray to Allah through the waseela of Sayyiduna Shaykh 'Abdal Qadir al-Jilaani, that He help Daniel Haqiqatjou to find his way out of the matrix of the dayabina, to the true path of ahl-al-sunnah - espousing the authentic aqeedah of.our saadaat and mashaikh - Shaykh 'Abdal Qadir al-Jilaani, Imam Ibn Atayillah al-Iskandari, Imaam an-Nawawi, Imam Ghazzali and the other illustrious and rightly guided souls that blazed the trail of light for us to follow in their wake.
(رحمم الله). Ameen.

 

In a qn re Imam Mehdi, Daniel clarifies that he's focused on the ummah at large against the common enemies of liberalism, zionism etc. He says clearly he has his own aqidah/manhaj but is more focused on the larger interests of the ummah against the common enemies. He says directly or indirectly he doesn't disclose his manhaj coz then people who don't agree with it, will inevitably undermine him/his work on the common cause of the ummah's larger interests.

 

I just made a quick search on youtube and found this:

Some deobandi guy added it to his channel.

 

He said that in one of his videos, but I didn't save it.

 

a lot of ibn taymiyyah followers consider themselves as Hanbali.

but i've never seen anywhere where the guy considers la-mazhabiism as wrong.

 

Yes, but also promoted the wahabi site, which is a bit strange, for he consider la-maddhabism a big problem.

 

https://www.youtube.com/live/T1Jd1sSgS9I?si=T807jhj7JmeGgqI_

blasted faraz rabbani and his seekersguidance today...

 

Visit the pyramids in Egypt with Yasir Qadhi


The amount of shaykhs and shaykhas collaborating with them is not funny.

 

see this deobandi - https://www.qalam.institute/abdulnasir-jangda

and his $ 5,100/head kenya safari to "reflect on the beauty of Allah's creation" - https://www.qalam.institute/kenya

DH has called it out on his groups, as he did the reformist/liberalist devbandis like faraz rabbani and a couple more. he's anti akram nadwi with a passion.

my point - without defending - the guy's one of the few resources against colonialism, in the Islamic sphere. that's all.

 

disclaimer: not saying this as a fanboy (i'm not) or DH's defense attorney. just engaging with you in this what-if analysis

1) his sphere of influence is anglosphere. he could have easily missed Khadim Hussein sahib marhoom from the Urdu/Punjabi world. that he (marhoom) caused pain to geert wilders is such a coolness to our eyes, but i don't know how popular that news was or was it hushed up. nonetheless,

2) this is a stronger reason, the guy's more hounded by zameel and south african devbandis. in anglosphere, south african devbandis are some of the most uncouth uncivil staunch anti-Barelwi bigots. i'm sure all of this has an effect on his being groomed against Barelwis

3) a better case to make for bigotry/bias is Asrar Rashid... he does know about him and has cited him too... just once. Asrar Rashid is not unknown in the fight against modernism in anglosphere and webspace.

4) this just my assessment, you're free to disagree - but if the guy can leave shiaism, and then later on too, turn against his former madkhali friends and liberal american dream shaykhs, i feel if presented the truth by the right person in the right manner, he probably would consider it and change.

another disclaimer: i follow Ala Hazrat who says that describing the events of the Shuhadaa of Karbala is a means of mercy, barakah, and thawab - as long as there's no shades of rafziyat involved in it.

however, do note, in my experience, the only Sunnis who i've seen make Ashura exclusively about remembrance of Imam Husayn radi Allahu 3anhu, to the point of enforcing it and rebuking those who don't, are desi Sunnis, thanks to the so many shia "influencers" amongst us. like it or not this is reality. we have picked up shia trends of focusing on Imam Husayn more than Imam Hasan radi Allahu 3anhumaa, and doing soft matam in the garb of "adab" like making unwritten rules of conducting marriages or happy events as haram, and so on. no Sunnis other than desi Sunnis are so "observant" of Ashura in THIS manner as desi Sunnis (real or perceived) are. most non-desi Sunnis for the most part can/will get through Ashura without mentioning Karbala.

so don't hold your breath for an ibn taymiyyah fan, moreso hounded by the worst devbandis in anglosphere, to do it, under the perceived fear of being shia-like.

brother, i didn't sign a blank check of endorsement on the guy! see post # 40 above.

it's a simple case of context - just support whatever anyone is doing against the war on Islam; even if he's addressing only one facet of the said war or dealing with it from only one angle, don't expect him to be the next Salahuddin or Shah Abdul Haq Dehlvi rahimahumullah.

see this thread too, where i was allegedly "promoting" Asaduddin Owaisi
https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/cab-bill-and-muslim-indian-situation.14422/#post-68021

if his heresy (whatever it is) hasn't reached kufr, and he isn't a colonial shill, it's fine in that context.

let me up the ante (or move it to the other side). let's take iran shah

afaik, he's become a full on sahaba-disparaging rafidi but i don't know (or don't remember) any kufr he uttered. now if he says something proper against netanyahu or zionists, i will agree and endorse that part. doesn't mean he's my qudwah.

if you do know he is doing some/all of that, do let me know. i don't speculate on how bad a guy "can be" other than what i/we see openly.

as for M. Hijab, i know nothing of the guy nor follow him, other than him too being an ibn Taymiyyah follower.

 

cross examination eh? tekram 3aynak please do include these others also

This Urdu screenshot is from that same Amjadia mufti saab's whatsapp status on that day. dun wanna name him for his and my privacy reasons.

anyways, i will address some points you just raised just today.

 

I have some comments on the following quotes
in sha Allah
thanks for your patience

[Edit: see newer posts where I have replied]