should we promote Daniel Haqiqatjou?

But it's 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
Nope. Here he is on Ebn Hussein and so-called Salafis in general: Lol, it’s obvious that Dan Jou is hurting. | X Cancelled. Ebn Hussein is not a Madkhali, and has criticized the Saudi government. The reason why DH calls Mr. Brancatella a Madkhali is because of his refusal to critizise the gulf rulers.
 
Are we seeing the birth of a part-shi'a-part-salafi chimera?
This was DH a couple of years ago: Intra-Sunni Polemics in Light of an Apostasy Crisis - Muslim Skeptic- this article stinks of ignorance and Sulh Kullism, but he has published worse things: Irony: Muslims Not Allying with Conservative Christians and Jews - Muslim Skeptic- is he really trying to say Muslims should have Walaa with Mushirks? But... He has said even worse things: This is misguidance on a new scale. | X Cancelled
 
what did he promise? lectures of aqidah? bayat at the hands of a Sunni shaykh? what did he deliver?

this was said in a manner of speaking.

The promise was of skepticism and "intellectual fulfillment" through Islam.

The first time I really took notice of him was when he wrote against Solomon Jalajel's paper on evolution and tawaqquf published by Yaqeen institute (since removed due to intense backlash I guess).

It looked like he would be using his critical thinking and research abilities against enemies of Islam to vindicate our positions.

I did not expect him to:
  1. Talk on controversial aqeeda matters, taking sides without due research
  2. Be dimissive of kalam
  3. Be so inconsistent in application of his critical thinking
  4. Fawn over Andrew Tate
  5. Say so little on scientific matters, theories, hypotheses
  6. Use strange home-brewed arguments in his debates with non-muslims (of the little I have watched his content, he sometimes makes arguments that I feel are shortsighted - make me feel uncomfortable to say the least)
Those are my reasons for terming his delivery under-whelming.

maybe it's our desi attitude of wanting all or nothing out of life and people.

Not really. I was not looking to learn aqeeda from Daniel anyway - but I can't ignore his aqeeda mistakes either.

I found Sami Hamdi to be a more focused political commentator and so far have not heard him making gaffes on aqeeda points. He stays in his field of expertise.

As for anti-liberal content, I found Tom Facchine's talks quite informative.

Neither of them are Sunni. But so long as they don't push their aqeeda in my face (like DH does) I don't mind taking what they have to offer.

Having said that, I will still repeat my earlier caution - listening to these commentators whose creedal backgrounds are unknown, is a luxury for those who are in close touch with ulama. I would never recommend it to your average guy on the street.

wa Allahu a'alam
 
This was DH a couple of years ago: Intra-Sunni Polemics in Light of an Apostasy Crisis - Muslim Skeptic- this article stinks of ignorance and Sulh Kullism

I think this is standard sulh-kullism and we shouldn't expect too much too soon. Back then, he might have been sincere in his own way. It's anyway better than all out takfiri wahabi speakers.

but he has published worse things: Irony: Muslims Not Allying with Conservative Christians and Jews - Muslim Skeptic- is he really trying to say Muslims should have Walaa with Mushirks?

Speaking as a layman with little dunyawi experience and political acumen, this point may be debatable in the current scenario. Muslim orgs in India have been allying for years with dalit hindus/buddists to resist hindutva's onslaught on our communities.

This is not to make friends with non-muslims, making a "common cause" more like.

wa Allahu a'alam
 
Interestingly, here's Tom Facchine standing up for DH, even though Tom is a director or something at Yaqeen and DH regularly blasts Yaqeen as Yasqueen etc.

 
Screenshot_20250115_183914_Telegram.jpg Screenshot_20250115_183940_Telegram.jpg
 
Interesting. Since he is in this rabbit hole, hopefully, he finds the roots of MIAW in the subcontinent, where Taqwiyat al-Iman serves as the Indian version of Kashf al-Shubuhaat
That does not look like it is going to happen.

From here:
Refuting the claim of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Jake that Shah Wali Allah al-Dehlawi and all other Deobandi scholars are KAFIRS who should be KILLED.
Even though the Bradford Devs have turned against DH, he still appears to support the Dev scholars- and he even believes Shah Waliullah was a Deobandi... How odd.
 
DH really needs to see these:
From here:
Wahabi are those who follow Abdul Wahab Najdi. Abdul Wahab Najdi was Hanbli from Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama?at.
From here:
(1) Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi (رحمة الله عليه) is not out of the folk of Ahl Sunnah al-Jamah.(2) It is against the final opinion of the Ulama of Deoband to declare Shaikh (رحمة الله) out of the folk of Ahl Sunnah al-Jamah.
Remember, DH has declared MIAW a deviant here.
This is a Deobandi Fatwa declaring various forms of Tawassul and Istighatha as Kufr and Shirk.
Deobandi Fatwa stating that a person who does Istighatha is outside the fold of Islam.
Dev-built wall of text in support and praise of MIAW.
Ismail Dehlavi's knock-off of MIAW's Four Principles of Shirk.
Anyone wants to put these on Twitter/X? Strike while the iron is hot.
 
From here:
Istighatha is not known with certainty to be shirk. We might know 99% but there is a possibility that it is not, so it's less than 100%.
This is the first time I have ever heard anyone say this. What I find particularly funny is that he is now criticizing MIAW for his whole "I am the only one who knows the meaning of La ilaha illAllah and none of my contemporaries know what La ilaha illAllah means" thing, however, when it comes to DH, as Unbeknown said earlier:
whatever he feels is correct, automatically becomes the majority view - possibly, arguably, most likely, demonstrably, evidently, certainly, rightly, without a doubt ....
While it is clear that MIAW and the Wahhabis that properly follow his example are minoritarian, and often they themselves make this apparent, DH gives the impression that he is this majoritarian, traditional Muslim who just wants what is best for the Ummah- despite his unflinching desire to follow his home-made Maslak (Manhaj).
 
From here:
After being humiliated in public debates, MIAW's followers ran away and stopped participating. Instead, they simply began killing those who disagreed with them. This is described by Ahmad Zayni Dahlan (1816–1886) the distinguished Shafi’i scholar, and the Grand Mufti of Mecca. This is mentioned in his famous 1878 text titled: Fitna al-Wahhabiyya.
I wonder what Daniel the Deobandi fanboy would say if he saw this: A Deobandi scholar defends Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and accuses Sheikh Zayni Dahlan of lying.

The Deobandi scholar in the video is Sajid Khan, who has a video in defense of MIAW as long as a feature-length movie, here.
From here:
the umma needs to learn from the ulama of Deoband. The results speak for themselves.
 
Documentation of Daniel's change of position on Istighatha. Some Twitter/X drama ahead.
From here:
Where did I say istighatha is never shirk, it is only haram? Why are you lying? Look at the receipts. For months, I have said over and over: It is not KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY that istighatha is shirk. And you have responded that it IS known with certainty. Because you don't have a basic Islamic education, you didnt realize that "known with certainty" means in Islamic terminology ma'lum min al-din bi-l-darura. Just because something is not shirk in a way that is known with certainty, that doesn't mean that it definitely is not.
The underlined part is confusing, to say the least. But Daniel's position at the beginning of his Istighatha dispute was that Istighatha is not definitely, i.e. certainly or without a doubt, Shirk- see here. So it looks like Daniel's first position was like that of Yasir Qadhi. Daniel said that Istighatha is Haram, and can be Shirk in some cases. Yasir Qadhi said that it is Haram, and can be Shirk in the cases of when the one doing Istighatha believes they are calling upon a deity, or believes that the one they are calling upon has the power to help independently of Allah.

However his position has now changed, it seems. From here:
You are too retarded to understand the difference between 1. Something is shirk Versus 2. Something is ma'lum min al-din bi-l-darura to be shirk
Also, from here:
Me in early December: Istighatha is not known with certainty to be shirk. We might know 99% but there is a possibility that it is not, so it's less than 100%.
Jake Brancatella has grasped DH's new position, see here. I think I get Daniel's new position as well. It seems his position is that Istighatha is Shirk, but the belief that it is Shirk is not known by necessity to be from the religion, ma'lum min al-din bi-l-darura. Therefore, it looks like he has ditched the YQ position and has moved on to the al-Dedew position! If you click here, you will see how al-Dedew says that Istighatha is Shirk and Kufr, but then says the one who is ignorant of this ruling is excused. It looks like Daniel, in an unclear way, is saying the same thing. Both Daniel and al-Dedew believe that those ignorant of their ruling on Istighatha are excused, and it is not necessary to make Takfir on them. Jake and his boss, MIAW believe that those ignorant of their ruling on Istighatha are not excused and it is necessary to make Takfir on them.

DH, as he stands currently, is worse than Yasir Qadhi. His only disagreements with MIAW and Jake on Istighatha are over the third nullifier out of MIAW's ten nullifiers and the 1% less than ma'lum min al-din bi-l-darura thing. Promoting him is a worse idea than promoting Yasir Qadhi, if you look at him in light of this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
he's been openly calling ibn abdul wahhab as a takfiri khariji on telegram

aqida checking Muslims is a bid'a characteristic of the khawarij.

فقد قال ابن سيرين: سؤالُ الرجل أخاه: أمؤمنٌ أنت؟ محنة بدعة، كما يمتحن الخوارج.

Ibn Sirin said: "A man asking his brother, 'Are you a believer?' is a trial and an innovation, just as the Khawarij used to test people."

Salafi sectarians, the neo-khawarij of our time, subject everyone outside their cult to nonstop aqida testing, but they never allow anyone to test their aqida.

For the past 2 months, a bunch of these tards and postal workers have demanded that I "not hide my aqida" and answer their questions.

I'm an honest person with nothing to hide alhamdulillah so I answer their questions. But the testing never ends. It is just a nonstop inquisition so that, if my answers slightly deviate from their cult or can even be misinterpreted to deviate, they can farm new content for videos like "DANIEL'S DEVIANCE EXPOSED" and "DANIEL FALLS INTO KUFR."

But the grift of these charlatans has been exposed by the fact that they refuse to be tested by others. This is evident from the fact they refuse to accept debate, even when I give them an overwhelming advantage, like 2v1 or even 4v1.

The reason they refuse to debate is partly because they know they'll get destroyed, but also because they know their fellow khawarij cult members will pounce on any mistake or slip up they make in the debate and use it against them endlessly. This is how this cult cannibalizes itself.

Not only do these grifters refuse debate, they also refuse to answer questions. I have posed many questions asking them to clarify their aqida on istighatha, takfir, Hindu temples in the gulf, etc., and they refuse to answer.

The reality is, they know aqida testing is a way to destroy others and they don't want to be destroyed, so they refuse to directly answer any questions. They are simply following the example of their khariji shaykh Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who also refused to debate or respond to challenges made against his innovations. He preferred to simply takfir anyone who disagreed with him and then declare jihad against the "apostates," murder them, and take their wealth.

The Salafi sectarian grift with its aqida testing needs to be collectively thrown in the trash as it is pure kharijism. Ibn Sirin said: "A man asking his brother, 'Are you a believer?' is a trial and an innovation, just as the Khawarij used to test people."

When Imam Bukhari entered Nishapur, some people tested him with the issue of whether the Qur'an is created or not. Bukhari responded: "The Qur'an is the speech of Allah, uncreated, and the actions of the servants are created. Testing people is an innovation."

These sectarians larp as orthodox Sunnis. They deceive Sunnis because people mistakenly assume that the more exacting you are on theological matters, the more orthodox you are. But this is false. The ulama of Ahl al-Sunna have universally condemned delving into the secondary and tertiary theological debates, especially in order to test lay Muslims. In reality, these sectarians are no more Sunni than the khawarij.

Notice also how they don't test people on actually relevant issues affecting the Iman and Islam of many Muslims:
1. What do you say about erosion of hijab?
2. What do you say about LGBT?
3. What do you say about secularization of Muslim societies?
4. What do you say about abolishing hudud and other provisions of the Sharia?

They don't test on these issues because
1. Most ulama are on the right side of these issues
2. Asking about these issues gets them on the wrong side of the Gulf rulers, who they depend on to survive

So testing people on these issues doesn't serve the intended purpose, which is to attack and destroy anyone who is not under their boot.

Instead they test you on: what is the only correct understanding of Allah's hand and is istighatha shirk akbar and other tertiary matters that have zero consequence for 99.99999% of Muslims.

How the followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab HOAX fake books on Salafi creed:

The case of al-Barbahari's Sharh al-Sunna Many of the followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab are not truthful, nor do they preserve the creed of the early Salaf. Rather, some of them are some of the biggest liars on earth when they talk about matters of creed and the early Salaf.

One of the best examples is a mass hoax they have perpetrated since the 1980s with aid from the Saudi government. This hoax involves spreading the text Sharh al-Sunna which they attribute to the Hanbali authority al-Barbahari (867-941 CE).

They falsely claim that this text was regarded as important and widely studied in the past. In reality, the book was studied by no one in the past, and was actually written by Ghulam Khalil (d.888 CE).

This is well established in academic circles (see the linked book below). Ghulam Khalil was an ignorant popular preacher, who gained infamy as a known liar and hadith fabricator.

In reality, much of what some of these loud followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab claim are nothing but egregious lies and hoaxes, that are only believed by the most ignorant people.

- They lie about and conceal the actual takfiri khariji teachings of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (which I will be exposing soon in an upcoming video inshaAllah),
- They lie about the actual teachings of Ibn Hanbal (who did not consider invoking angels and jinn to be shirk).
- They lie about the actual teachings of Ibn Taymiyya (who held views similar to Ibn Hanbal),
- They blatantly misrepresent and conceal the contents of the works of Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Harb al-Kirmani (and pretend to have studied these books).
-And if all of that is not enough, they simply outright hoax texts like al-Barbahari's Sharh al-Sunna.

Not only do these fools fabricate lies about the Salaf, the Sunna, and al-Barbahari - most are too stupid to actually read the contents of the texts they are fabricating.

Anyone who reads the contents of the alleged text of Barabahari sees that the author is a raving arrogant ignoramus like Ibn Abd al-Wahhab - the latter of which claimed he discovered tawhid, claimed he was the only one who knew it in his age, and then takfired the entire world.

Indeed the reason why the hoaxed text of al-Barbahari appeals to the followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is because the author likewise appears to be a raving arrogant ignoramus. If you want a window into the mind of a follower of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, look at the following ridiculous quotes for Sharh al-Sunnah.

In these quotes, the author claims to have an infallible and absolute knowledge of Islam, such that whoever has the slightest disagreement with EVEN A SINGLE LETTER is to be judged a deviant or kafir.

The author explicitly claims that all Muslims have an obligation to accept every word that he says. In this way, the author speaks in the same way as Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Rabi bin Hadi al-Madkhali.

The author says: "Whoever acknowledges what is in this book, believes in it, takes it as an example to follow, does not doubt a single letter of it, and does not reject even one letter, is a follower of the Sunnah and the Jama‘ah—complete in his adherence to the Sunnah. But whoever rejects even a single letter from this book, doubts any part of it, or hesitates, is a person of desires [i.e., heretics] (ahl al-hawa).

فمن أقر بما في هذا الكتاب وآمن به واتخذه إماما، ولم يشك في حرف منه، ولم يجحد حرفا واحدا، فهو صاحب سنة وجماعة، كامل، قد كملت فيه السنة، ومن جحد حرفا مما في هذا الكتاب، أو شك [في حرف منه أو شك فيه] أو وقف فهو صاحب هوى. ومن جحد أو شك في حرف من القرآن، أو في شيء جاء عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، لقي الله تعالى مكذبا، فاتق الله واحذر وتعاهد إيمانك. “

Everything I have described to you in this book is from Allah, from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ from his Companions, from the Followers (Tabi'un), and from the third to the fourth generation. So fear Allah, O servant of Allah, and adhere to belief, submission, delegation [and contentment] with what is in this book.

Do not conceal this book from anyone among the people of the Qibla, for perhaps Allah may guide someone confused back from his confusion, or turn an innovator away from his innovation, or guide a misguided person from his misguidance, thereby saving him.

"So fear Allah and hold fast to the original ancient way, which is what I have described to you in this book. May Allah have mercy on a servant and on his parents who reads this book, spreads it, acts upon it, calls to it, and uses it as proof. For it is the religion of Allah and the religion of His Messenger ﷺ. Whoever adopts anything contrary to what is in this book does not truly practice the religion of Allah. He has rejected all of it, just as if a servant believed in everything Allah the Exalted has said but doubted a single letter, he would have rejected everything Allah has said and would be a disbeliever.”

وجميع ما وصفت لك في هذا الكتاب، فهو عن الله، وعن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وعن أصحابه وعن التابعين، والقرن الثالث إلى القرن الرابع، فاتق الله يا عبد الله، وعليك بالتصديق والتسليم والتفويض [والرضى] لما في هذا الكتاب، ولا تكتم هذا الكتاب أحدا من أهل القبلة، فعسى يرد الله به [حيرانا] عن حيرته، أو صاحب بدعة من بدعته، أو ضالا عن ضلالته، فينجو به. فاتق الله، وعليك بالأمر الأول العتيق، وهو ما وصفت لك في هذا الكتاب، فرحم الله عبدا، ورحم والديه قرأ هذا الكتاب، وبثه وعمل به ودعا إليه، واحتج به، فإنه دين الله ودين رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فإنه من انتحل شيئا خلاف ما في هذا الكتاب، فإنه ليس يدين لله بدين، وقد رده كله، كما لو أن عبدا آمن بجميع ما قال الله تبارك وتعالى، إلا أنه شك في حرف فقد رد جميع ما قال الله تعالى، وهو كافر، كما أن شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله لا تقبل من صاحبها إلا بصدق النية وخالص اليقين، كذلك لا يقبل الله شيئا من السنة في ترك بعض، ومن ترك من السنة شيئا فقد ترك السنة كلها.

Keep in mind, my problem with these loud defenders of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is not simply that they are ignorant, arrogant, or harsh. Rather it is that they are open liars and fabricators who follow the deviant Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and have declared an open war on the Ahl al-Sunna. They do all this while raving about their infallible knowledge of Sunna and creed, just like Ghulam Khalil, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and Rabi bin Hadi al-Madkhali did.

---

upload_2025-1-20_9-36-14.png upload_2025-1-20_9-36-53.png upload_2025-1-20_9-37-20.png

Typical Wahhabis. Say Imam Abu Hanifa is under the feet of takfiri khariji Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.
 
This was DH a couple of years ago: Intra-Sunni Polemics in Light of an Apostasy Crisis - Muslim Skeptic- this article stinks of ignorance and Sulh Kullism
From here:
This is why scholars like Sh Dido and, before him, Ibn Taymiyya, and before him, the Salaf said, do not target the public with these aqida debates. Those of us who know better, whether we're Salafi, Ashari, Deobandi, have a duty to stamp out this Wahhabi fitna.
Hahaha. How does Daniel expect Salafis to "stamp out" the fitna created by their own "al-Imam wal-Mujaddid" ibn Abd al-Wahhab? How can Deobandis do this, when they have this stuff on their official website: From here:
Najdi is called one who is attributed to a great reformer and scholar Hadhrat Shiakh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi (رحمۃ اللہ علیہ). This great reformist was accused of many things; therefore the opponents attribute us to him for irritating us.

Also, from here:
(1) Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi (رحمة الله عليه) is not out of the folk of Ahl Sunnah al-Jamah.(2) It is against the final opinion of the Ulama of Deoband to declare Shaikh (رحمة الله) out of the folk of Ahl Sunnah al-Jamah.
 
Jake Brancatella has grasped DH's new position, see here. I think I get Daniel's new position as well. It seems his position is that Istighatha is Shirk, but the belief that it is Shirk is not known by necessity to be from the religion, ma'lum min al-din bi-l-darura. Therefore, it looks like he has ditched the YQ position and has moved on to the al-Dedew position! If you click here, you will see how al-Dedew says that Istighatha is Shirk and Kufr, but then says the one who is ignorant of this ruling is excused. It looks like Daniel, in an unclear way, is saying the same thing. Both Daniel and al-Dedew believe that those ignorant of their ruling on Istighatha are excused, and it is not necessary to make Takfir on them.

Daniel found the clip I linked, see here. He confirms what I said about him:
If Sh Didu says that istighatha is shirk, and I say that I think he is almost certainly correct (but am not 100 percent certain that he is correct) - how does this mean that I disagree with him? Also, notice that Sh Didu, unlike Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, does not assert that his opinion is certain and ma'lum min al-din bi-darura.

So it looks like Daniel's current position- if he hasn't changed it without me knowing- is that Istighatha is Shirk, but the belief that it is Shirk is not known by necessity to be from the religion, ma'lum min al-din bi-l-darura, and that those ignorant of this ruling on Istighatha are excused, and it is not necessary to make Takfir on them. What is silly is that on the 28th December 2024 he retweeted a meme with Jake Brancatella shouting in front of a Dargah "THIS GREAT SUNNI THEOLOGIAN DID SHIRK!", here. However, Daniel himself holds the position that Istighatha is Shirk.

From here:
Moreover, unlike Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Sh Didu does not takfir those who disagree with him, or pronounce mass takfir over Muslim lands, or declare a jihad against the people in those lands.
But what did al-Dedew say about MIAW's mass takfir and the Wahhabi mass murdering of Muslims: see here- warning: video contains music.
 
Back
Top