should we promote Daniel Haqiqatjou?

funnily, he might have dabbled into aqidah/fiqh issues before, but i never saw it. (the only aqidah/fiqh i've seen before is established issues across sects which modernism and colonialism of democracy seek to whitewash, like he advocated perennialism is kufr, anti-pro-lgbt shuyukh etc.)

now, we're both on the same page - he has fallen into the madkhalis' trap (and i believe he thinks they've fallen into his!), at least on this specific case of mass takfeer, and somehow i think the moron zameel has fallen into multiple traps, madkhalis, DH, shaytan, shias. anyways:

istighatha issue -

in this video between 1:36:00 and 1:38:00 he says/implies that Imam Ahmad probably made an ijtihadi mistake and we have the freedom to choose from other imams like Nawawi or Suyuti (two names he did mention) coz we don't agree with his ijtihad on this issue. afaik, there's no evidence from Nawawi or Suyuti either that they held istighatha to be haram; that aside from the fact that Imam Ahmad is a much senior imam than them. (ps. just my luck i accidentally got to that part in this lengthy video)

https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=byUMkgPocIY

shia issue & the refutation of zameel mardood -

as a political commentator and activist, he's punching above his weight - perhaps only on this one time when the madkhalis are trying to build a case for lynching him based on aqidah and extracting his aqidah out of him - but the silver lining is:

it shows the guy's sincere. he's not a blind fanboy of zameel mardood as zameel himself is of the tawagheet of devband! it is indeed comforting to see that he has stood against zameel - even if with adab thinking of the zindiq as an aalim/mufti.

it also shows that he thinks for himself and is still on his journey of self discovery in Islam, despite the fact that he still has symptoms of salafiism from past life, like thinking he or others might have better ijtihad than Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal's. we should pray to Allah he recovers fully and these symptoms too disappear!

the topic he's talking about - the shia belief in superiority of imams over former ambiyaa:

let's see that topic in a separate thread as a standalone topic - https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/is-this-hadith-fabricated.4810/

 

He also said that denying the khilafah of sayiddina Abu Bakr isn't kufr if I remember correctly from the refutation video earlier in the thread.

Ruling here:

https://www.thesunniway.com/article...of-abu-bakr-and-umar-radiyallahu-taala-ánhuma

 

Are the Shia Disbelievers for Their Belief in Superiority of Imams Over Prophets? A Response to Mufti Zameel

I haven't been following DH closely but it seems he has waded too far into matters that are not his field. This has been my grouse with him all along but this time it seems he has surpassed all previous milestones.

Check the link for his actual arguments.

 

In this clip the wahabi is saying you can not even call the angels for help, and he explains that the rule applies even when the one being sought help from is able to help. This is contrary to what the wahabis are saying on the islamqa site and those debating haqiqatjou.





It seems Israr's aqidah teacher was a bigger wahabi than ibn Abdul Wahab himself. According to him to ask a living person for help a couple of times is permissible, but to ask him for the third time is shirk.

 

wahabis and devbandis should refute ibn al-qayyim
https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/...-argues-for-the-validity-of-calling-the-dead/

 

who? where?

what blinkers?

the whole point of this thread is that the guy's a political commentator and activist for Muslim interests against the war on Islam... for the most part... until now that the madkhalis cornered him on istighatha as some sort of a gotcha moment making accusations of closet shia/"quboori" - when he was calling for pan-Islamism across sects and ethnicities, and for his calling out many shuyukh (including many salafi ones) on muddying clear cut deeni basics on clear cut issues - lgbt, feminism, role of women and family, secularism, liberalism, kowtowing to colonial powers, normalizing with yahood etc.

while the guy had been avoiding airing his exact manhaj for a long time only so he can continue his focus on the larger war on Islam, he fell for the madkhali wahabis' trap - in my opinion, because of an egotistical weak moment - i feel he needed to safeguard his rep at that moment. he should have swallowed his pride and continued with the mantra of "i'm a pan-Islamist espousing unity across sects and ethnicities against the west's war on Islam, and i won't let you have the satisfaction of knowing my aqidah"

do i believe the guy's opinions on istighatha are moronic, and bad fiqh, most probably based on bad aqidah too? most certainly. i echo brother Abu Hasan's sentiment:

if anyone wants to or does take any such personality like this as a qudwa, peer, murshid, mentor etc. - he's deluded.

we ought to start being more politically astute. it's that simple. political activists, figures, commentators etc. should be treated like that, and might i add, supported too, in repelling the colonial war on Islam.

shuyukh like Asrar Rashid, if they get involved in political activism in certain times and places, they should be seen in that context in those times and places.

(and all shuyukh SHOULD be politically active in our times, imho)

i do however, see sincerity in the guy's journey - from denouncing shiaism to denouncing reformism (suhaib webb types) to denouncing madkhaliism to actually acknowledging that ibn taymiyya (someone some undisputed SUNNI ulama called shaykhul Islam) and iaw (a filthy shaitan no Sunni aalim praised except for the countable few who did due to some maslaha at hand) are not the same deal... something many Sunnis say in conversations, that there's a difference.

not being an advocate, but this is a very telling statement. no one from the devbandi akabir has made such a candid statement in my limited knowledge

so we can just call the guy for what he is - a political commentator - and repeat @Unbeknown sincere prayer

---

no one brought it up on this forum, but elsewhere offline, in totally different settings, i've seen people tell me that people like these are planted agents.

specifically on the following two characters

Daniel Haqiqatjou - if you think he was genuine, why haven't the feds nabbed him yet? How come only he says this kind of stuff and gets away with it, while others are cancelled?
Asaduddin Owaisi - (more than one friend/family people said it to me offline) - how is it that hindutva goons murder other Muslim activists/public figures with impunity, but somehow he's unharmed? apparently, he's there just to incite anger in hindus and help the bjp.

my take - Allah protects whom He wills. only His Will happens. if we do these over-smart analytics, we will lose our minds at any n number of high profile Muslim personalities. we only see, judge, and act on the apparent and leave the secrets to Allah.

 

I never could understand the fawning by some on here over Daniel. If you had followed him for any length of time it would have been fairly obvious what his views probably were from the scholars he praised. He would praise a sub continental scholar like Taqi Uthmani but never a Sunni scholar.

Maybe his recent postings will take the blinkers off some eyes?

 

on what basis? is it absolute? all those hadith masters and jurists of madh'habs were ignorant and this youtuber and social media celeb knows better than all of them. what a disgrace!

which aayat/hadith is evidence for this definition of "calling to anyone is allowed, but calling out to unseen beings is shirk"?
notice, he has smartly excluded the calling out for donations, or sponsorships etc - even though they are unseen, literally. i don't know if he asks for donations, and if he does, does he see his donors all the time? but why is it not shirk according to his madh'hab?

also:
"call out to unseen beings like the dead, angels and jinn"; why the specification?

so he is not against "unseen helpers" absolutely. only the dead, angels and jinn. unseen donors, unseen support is not shirk. daniel has the scriptural evidence for it, just ask.

 

his telegram post:

 

I'm pretty sure Jake isn't a madkhali either. But interesting that DH feels the need to paint him as such because he doesn't want to declare the entire salafi sect as deviant- he therefore has to pick a sub group, pretend Jake is a part of that sub group and blast them. This means he doesn't need to blast the entire salafi group because... Presumably... He's actually part of the overall group. Or at the very least, hangs out with people from that group and considers the overall group to be sunni.

Seems like a fairly dishonest tactic

 

Is this the same Jake who appeared with him in debate against Christians? If so, this guy Jake seems to be getting kicked out everywhere he goes.

 

Sure.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/197463/it-is-possible-to-fly-with-the-help-of-jinn-or-angel

An excerpt from the above: it is not permissible to call upon the angels, seek their help or ask them to meet one’s needs instead of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted; rather that comes under the heading of shirk

Then we got this:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/181...ss-let-him-call-out-help-me-o-slaves-of-allah

In short, the wahabis running the site accept the narration of Imam Ahmed and don't see it as shirk.

 

Brother can you give links, references or screenshot, for benefit of general public,

 

Considering how the Istighatha debate resurfaces every now and then, it might be a good idea to arrange a large-scale debate perhaps akin to the USA presidential debates, broadcasted to millions of viewers, to settle the matter once and for all.

A politically neutral country like Malaysia could host such an event, delivering a decisive blow to the already declining Najdi ideology.

 

main na kahta tha kay suhbat dev ki acchi nahin?

 

This moron calls it shirk. I have a saved copy of the wahabi "islamqa" site where it says that seeking help from the angels is shirk; yet at another place, when asked regarding the hadith about calling servants of Allah for help and the practice of Imam Ahmed, they explained that it's not shirk as the help was sought from angels! I know wahabis like israr and mirza engineer, who specifically mention seeking help from angels as shirk.

The hadith itself does not say that the help being sought is only from the angels, and Mulla Ali Qari in his explanation of the hadith includes the awliya Allah among the helpers.

 

DH poking fun and cracking wise at some madkhali called Jake who cross-examined DH on istighatha by deceased awliyaa, while himself believing that istighatha by living angels is permitted as exemplified by Imam Ahmad's action.

DH is displaying astounding moronicity and takabbur here. He doesn't realize that he ain't poking fun at this Jake guy whoever he is, but rather casting aspersion on Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal rahimahullah.

If any sane and down to earth person was discussing about Imam Ahmad's action, he would give a high and mighty mujtahid mutlaq his due respect and credit. Instead, DH threw it at this guy as some sort of a gotcha curveball to corner him, only to himself suggest it's haram and make a fool of himself! What zameel's company does to people!

(opportunist tafzili idiot alert: I don't suggest the 4 imams are ma3soom, but I do say only a madman from 2024 will think that he can fault them for their understanding of aqidah and fiqh and attribute incapability to discern a gray area to them!)

this is the context to his "joke" aimed at Jake:

It's incredibly hard to say which one is a bigger jahil, and where's the bigger irony -

1) the moron who says istighatha to angels by Imam Ahmad is perfectly valid whereas istighatha to deceased awliyaa is outright shirk and practitioners are all mushrikeen; or
2) the other moron who suggests he knows better than Imam Ahmad by saying he can be given "an excuse", and says the istighatha performed by him is "not halal", but doesn't do blanket takfir of all istighatha practitioners!

 

Despite the fact that he has a nuanced position on istighatha and doesn't label people doing it as mushrikeen, it is incredible hubris to say that Imam Ahmad "can be excused", as if he knows better than the Imam, or to inadvertently suggest that the imam somehow did some makruh or impermissible action to wareant an "excuse". (Ps. I don't know the narration being talked about where Imam Ahmad apparently invoked the Angels, an act the madkhali wahabis say is perfectly fine per DH's telegram post.)

The madkhalis are morons who don't know what they're talking about when they say it's permitted to do istighatha by living angels but not by deceased awliya! (What about prophets who are certified as alive in their graves?) Daniel is equally moronic for his "strict position" and "excusing" Imam Ahmad.

It's really a shame his (anti-west) talent and sincerity wasn't harnessed by Sunnis!

---

A scholar told me this once and I agree with it -

The problem with wahabis and devbandis (with whom DH is close) is NOT that they don't know or understand mantiq, or fiqh, or hadith, or tafsir, or Arabic, or any n number of sciences. They don't know and understand their Creator, and what is worshiping Him!

 

DH has been falling out with the madkhalis for a long time now, for not blanket takfiring Sufis and shias.

 

I haven't watched the original debate as it's several hours long so cannot say whether this accurately depicts what transpired but it seems haqiqatjou is denying that various beliefs of the Shia mean they are disbelievers such as rejecting the khilafah of sayyiduna Abu Bakr and their claim that the imams are superior to certain Prophets alayhim as Salaam

He is also twisting the words of Al ghazali etc to reach this position