Daniel Haqiqatjou Book

[Heron Mathis]

Who watched the Daniel Haqiqatjou interview with Sunni Discourse about 3 days ago? What were some of your thoughts, impressions etc.? Personally I like Daniel's arguments against LGBT, postmodernism, atheism, liberalism, feminism and how he champions the Islamic narrative. I disagree with his interpretation of events related to Islamic history and attempting to normalize personalities like Mu'awiyah, Abu Sufyan, Hind, Yazid etc.

So I watched the whole thing, body language wise you could tell haqiqatjou seems sincere in his problems with Shia text and community practices. He tried to avoid being used as propaganda throughout the interview, I expected him to be more anti-Shia like the other Iranian guy. But he doesn't resort to saying Shias worship Imams and the usual SD narrative, in fact SD team had to edit in clips for their propaganda. He did for some odd reason mention the Gabriel delivering to the wrong person and the continuation of wahi. It seems like he did switch from sincere to get some points with SD team at the end. This was a very odd transition. Now to the points he made.

I understand his grapple with the epistemology and Kafi but don't understand why he chooses instead Bukhari and the likes. I'm certain this is not his final form, with the sincerity he shows in his conversation I believe more learned people will reach out to him. It seems he really has issues with al-Kafi being the main shia text but having fabrications. I personally never read a hadith books but from secondary sources seems that contradictions and fabrications are readily present. I my view I am perfectly ok with a chaotic contradictory non-Sahih collection, as it represents the corruption off all text with time/politics/circumstances. It's as natural as a decaying tree in the forest. It seems like DH prefers the Sunni text due to the Rijal of sunni scholars? I don't have time to read on this stuff. That seems to be his main grapple with Al Kafi. But if you play by their rules of course their narrative will win.

1. His other issue is with Ilme-ghaib and ismah, I'm not going to discuss this topic but defer to Kamal Haderis view on the idea that the inclusion criteria for the Shia should not have to include the concept of Ismah and Ilme-ghaib. Kamal Haderi believes these are concepts developed by Shia Scholars themselves and not necessarily propagated by the Imams. (I'm not looking for an argument here, he himself believes in Ismah and Ilme ghalib and that obligation is still mandatory to the Ahlul-Bayt and Imams.)

2. He has issues with culture practices with "Ya Ali" in Iranian culture. I'm surprised how common this practice is among Iranians. I know people whose families who never visit masjids say "Ya Ali". He also he mentions his Iranian grandma always getting blessings from the local Imam in Iran. He also has issues with the lamentations all things that are more cultural and easily manipulated into being an apparent Usol or Furuh e deen. Azadari is means not an end. I'm sure many Shias themselves are aware of these criticism but it is never really a reason to leave Shi'ism. He also mentions that Shia sermons are always about Jamal, Kerbala, ect. and not about purifying your sole, or level of ethics, ect. He says this is a reason he chose Sunnism. This is also just reality, but it's doesn't discount the ethics and duas of Sahifyah Sajadiyah, it makes sense for the majority of Shia sermons to be this way as we are generally a minority fighting off attacks.

Now for my conclusion, the Sunni Polemic team is trying to make inroads into America. The Mad Mamlooks a popular Chicago based podcast recently hosted Shemrani and just had a laugh fest on Shias worshiping Imams. I propose that they intend to proselytize among American Iranians. A healthy hatred for Iran among Americans and Iranian-Americans make this prime territory. Even a significant portion of their video is dedicated to the politics of Iran. Believe it or not America is a very religious country and there aren't many neutral options for Iranians to turn to. The Centers in the U.S have historically catered to the persecuted minorities of Asia and have naturally emphasized our Imams and polemics. Iranians on the other hand have not been persecuted and are usually looking for the spiritual. I interact with a lot of highly educated and successful " secular spiritual" Iranians who could easily fall for this narrative. In fact Haqiqatjou himself fell for this narrative. The narrative utilizes questionable cultural practices to gain trust through half truth, but the replacement is itself filled with holes.

I personally don't care about peoples believes, I'm glad we finally got his story. The way he supports beheading, justifies slavery, hand chopping in our modern era is to much for me. But I wouldn't be surprised if that whole identity is not a sham to build followers.

As for his conversion to salafi I felt bad. As I was previously 12er and had many issue with the aqeeda of 12er imamat. But I never left as the succesion of Imam Ali was an anchor. I eventually found Zaidiya. But I feel for him to do a complete switch to salafi. Did he actually have knowledge of who Imam Ali was.

He also mentions that Shia sermons are always about Jamal, Kerbala, ect. and not about purifying your sole, or level of ethics, ect. He says this is a reason he chose Sunnism. This is also just reality, but it's doesn't discount the ethics and duas of Sahifyah Sajadiyah, it makes sense for the majority of Shia sermons to be this way as we are generally a minority fighting off attacks

Honestly, I disagree, I feel as if Shia preachers nowadays are moving towards actually improving yourself like gaining marifa, how to spiritually build yourself, solutions to modern problems, but you will get the occasional jab at Jamal, Siffen, Saqifa, here and there, but why not thou? History is our strong point, why not propogate it?

I personally don't care about peoples believes, I'm glad we finally got his story. The way he supports beheading, justifies slavery, hand chopping in our modern era is to much for me. But I wouldn't be surprised if that whole identity is not a sham to build followers

Yeah but are they doing it in Iran or Iraq? From my understanding this can only be implemented under a Just Imam. Us chopping hands or fingers and letting 9 y/o marry isn't going to solve our modern problems. Even the marriage age in Iran is legally 16? while islamicaly its 9.

So I watched the whole thing, body language wise you could tell haqiqatjou seems sincere in his problems with Shia text and community practices. He tried to avoid being used as propaganda throughout the interview, I expected him to be more anti-Shia like the other Iranian guy.

His objections to shi'ism seem to be based on a very superficial and incorrect understanding of the religion and on some cultural practices. I wonder if he would be willing to debate someone from the community.

I don't think its worth it, the guy is off the rails. I just went to his YouTube channel he speaks against science and evolution, promotes polygamy and who knows what else. If anything this raises awareness about not confusing cultural practice as foundations of our religion. TBH I overestimated his appeal in my original post. He did also repeat the Shia's have a bigger Quran claim, I don't think he's actually read al-Kafi as he says he has. I cant imagine any reasonable educated person agreeing with him. Maybe it is the opposite, maybe he is going fishing for followers in the UK. He is basically all the believes of ISIS living in the USA.

Just the concept of 12 infallible imams was difficult to come by unless I was reffering to 12er literature. The superiority of Abu bakar was limited to Sunni ahadith. Neither made much sense or had strong Quranic evidence.

I doubt it honestly, I mean anyone with half a brain will be able to know that this is a biased one sided channel, and it's sole purpose is to discredit the Shia school of thought, so everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt

Daniel's an anomaly and attracts attention because: 1.) he's a Harvard graduate that made a conscious decision to turn his back on the very structure that birthed him into being...he actively challenges its presumed intellectual assumptions and ideological foundations 2.) he's a Persian guy that embraced Sunni Islam (sideshow circus appeal). I'm subscribed to his YouTube channel and watch his videos often and peek in at from time-to-time. I agree with most (not all) of what he has to say regarding criticism of Ikhwan collaboration with liberal institutions and organizations (e.g. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlalib alignment with the Democratic party, LGBT activism etc.). I believe most of his critiques of Jonathon Brown, Shadee Elmasry, Yaqeen Institute, Zaytuna College etc. are Islamically grounded and justified. I'm somewhat familiar with Daniel's 'conversion' story. Like most Iranian Americans, he comes from a primarily secular upbringing. From what little I'm able to gather (by his own admission) he was a lukewarm Shi'i at best in a wilderness of Sunnism...he met some goodhearted MSA brothers that really 'took him in'...yes, I believe his 'conversion' was largely emotional...soft power cultural influence of Sunni Islam is very warm and appealing

c80f0f1006