Daniel Haqiqatjou is an Iranian American, who had supposedly converted from Tashayyuʿ (Shiasm) to Islām. He gained worldwide fame for his campaign, ostensibly against modernism and feminism. Although at the outset there were some who opined that his campaign was merely a cover for a gripe against his former employers at Yaqeen Institute, his work was generally appreciated in traditional circles. It was held that for the greater benefit, any deficiencies should be overlooked. Yet with the passage of time, problems with his personality and views became more frequent and concerning, culminating with his calls for unity with the Shīʿah and whitewashing their Kufr beliefs, such as cursing the Ṣaḥābah (رضي الله عنهم). This article serves to record some points of concern regarding this fitnah monger. It will be concise. These few points should be sufficient to alert the sincere Muslim who guards his Dīn, and he can do his own research thereafter. Conversely volumes will not be enough to bother a fanboy who places his idol above Islām.

A Unique Personality in the History of Shīʿī Converts

A hallmark of Shīʿī converts to Islām is that they, having been drowning in the muck of Shīʿī Kufr and now bathed in the purity of Islām, are always fiercely anti-Tashayyuʿ. Some of them are so fierce in their repentance and hatred of Tashayyuʿ, that their attitude is far more aggressive than that of any born Muslim. For example, my late teacher, ash-Shaykh Ṭāhā Karān, tasked me with translating the first volume of Ayāt Bayyināt, an anti-Tashayyuʿ polemic written by Nawāb Muḥsin ʾal-Mulk (d. 1907) who had converted from Tashayyuʿ to Islām. The book is extremely valuable and the intelligent author provides amazing insight. However, too much was tautology and atomic nit-picking against Tashayyuʿ to a degree that no born Muslim would have been focused on. I recommended to my teacher that we not spend time on the next volume.

Daniel is perhaps the sole exception to this pattern in the history of famous Shīʿī converts. While they are averse to Tashayyuʿ, he however claims to be a Muslim, while still defending his old religion. This is by itself a cause of concern to any student of history and Tashayyuʿ. How would you regard a Jew who claims to have converted, but still defends Judaism?

Iran: Conflating Pragmatism With Stealth Kufr

No Muslim has ever criticised the Mujāhidūn of Palestine for accepting aid from Irān. The exception of the Madākhilah who worship their rulers above Allāh is irrelevant to the current topic. We understand the situation of the Palestinians who are forced to accept such Iranian aid, but they have never stooped to recognising or accepting the Kufr of Tashayyuʿ in any form. Their relationship with Iran is pragmatic and forced by circumstances.

What Daniel however has done, is demand that Muslims accept the Kufr of Tashayyuʿ as being a form of Islām. True to an internet personality’s tactics, rather than a sincere scholar’s, he deploys the missile of emotional blackmail by pretending that not accepting Irān and its Kufr equates to treason against ʾal-ʾAqṣā and the Palestinians. If I have to further explain the distinction between the two scenarios and the stealthy danger to our ʿAqīdah that Daniel’s proposition poses, then pardon me, Allāh increase your intelligence and save you from cyber idolatry.

Deceptive Presentation of Islāmic ʿAqīdah

As part of his agenda to make the Kufr of the Shīʿah more palatable, Daniel presented the Kufr of Shīʿah reviling of the Ṣaḥābah (رضي الله عنهم) as “not necessarily kufr” knowing that true Muslims understand the status of the Ṣaḥābah (رضي الله عنهم) and deeply love them.

In case you think Daniel managed to find some isolated opinion amongst the scholars of Islām, this is not the case. He is neither some astounding researcher to have uniquely stumbled across such a statement, nor is this is uniquely the opinion of ʾal-ʾImām ʾas-Subkī (رحمه الله). It is the general theoretical view of the scholars of Islām which can be found in books of ʿAqīdah and commentaries of Ḥadīth. This is rather a case of Daniel’s deception to the laymen.

The key words that Daniel glosses over is for “personal reason” which has absolutely no bearing in this matter. For example, “The sign of faith is love for the ʾAnṣār and the sign of hypocrisy is hatred for the ʾAnṣār” [Muslim]. Thus one who hates an ʾAnṣārī because of his status of Helper of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) is a hypocrite and disbeliever. However, someone who has a personal issue with an ʾAnṣārī, e.g. financial or land dispute, is not said to be a disbeliever solely on that basis. Scholars do not generally emphasis this distinction to laymen today, because it has no relevance in our time. Who is there that has a personal dispute with ʾAnas (رضي الله عنه) today? On the other hand, who can hate him today except because of a matter of belief, and is thus a disbeliever? The Shīʿah clearly revile the Ṣahābah (رضي الله عنهم) on a theological basis. If Daniel genuinely did not understand that, he is an utter ignoramus and should remain silent on religious affairs. Sadly, he is not that ignorant. He has slandered an ʾImām of the Muslims (ʾal-ʾImām ʾas-Subkī (رحمه الله)) and intentionally distorted the beliefs of the Muslims – acts which Shīʿah perpetrate par excellence.

What Practical Rulings are Relevance Today?

Even assuming that Daniel’s slander against ʾal-ʾImām ʾas-Subkī is valid, why does he not mention rulings of like that of ʾal-ʾImām Mālik (رحمه الله) whom I would assume he knows to be of astronomical proportions above ʾal-ʾImām ʾas-Subkī (رحمه الله). The ʾImām of ʾal-Madīnah commented solely in regards ʾal-Fatḥ, ʾāyah 29 i,e.:

مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ ٱللَّهِ وَٱلَّذِينَ مَعَهُۥٓ أَشِدَّآءُ عَلَى ٱلْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَآءُ بَيْنَهُمْ تَرَىٰهُمْ رُكَّعًا سُجَّدًا يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ  ٱللَّهِ وَرِضْوَٰنًا سِيمَاهُمْ فِى وُجُوهِهِم مِّنْ أَثَرِ ٱلسُّجُودِ ذَٰلِكَ مَثَلُهُمْ فِى ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةِ وَمَثَلُهُمْ فِى ٱلْإِنجِيلِ  كَزَرْعٍ أَخْرَجَ شَطْـَٔهُۥ فَـَٔازَرَهُۥ فَٱسْتَغْلَظَ فَٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَىٰ سُوقِهِۦ يُعْجِبُ ٱلزُّرَّاعَ لِيَغِيظَ بِهِمُ ٱلْكُفَّارَ وَعَدَ ٱللَّهُ  ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ وَعَمِلُوا۟ ٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتِ مِنْهُم مَّغْفِرَةً وَأَجْرًا عَظِيمًۢا

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allah and [His] pleasure. Their mark is on their faces from the trace of prostration. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is as a plant which produces its offshoots and strengthens them so they grow firm and stand upon their stalks, delighting the sowers – so that Allah may enrage the disbelievers by means of them [the Companions]. Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds among them forgiveness and a great reward. 

That solely on this basis, i.e. without even regard to their other Kufr such as the interpolation of the Qurʾān, ʾal-ʾImām Mālik (رحمه الله) declared the Shīʿah disbelievers for their ill-will towards the Ṣaḥābah (رضي الله عنهم). [Tafsīr ʾIbn Kathīr and ʾal-Qurṭubī]. He had no agenda like Daniel, other than the pleasure of Allāh, and by his time there was no excuse to hate the Ṣaḥābah (رضي الله عنهم) for “personal reasons.”

If ʾal-ʾImām Mālik (رحمه الله) is of less relevance to you than Daniel, then you are of no relevance to me. For Allāh has established love for the Ṣaḥābah (رضي الله عنهم) as a sign of the believers who dissociate from those who have rancour in their hearts against the Ṣaḥābah (رضي الله عنهم):

He is the Sole Criteria of Right vs Wrong

Some critics target Daniel’s physique. This is grossly unfair. Anyone who has truly interacted with him would know that his humongous ego makes his body look quite slim in comparison. Whenever is sincerely advised he lashes out as if you are an enemy. Not just a personal enemy mind you, you are an enemy of the faith and probably doomed to spend eternity in Hell with Yaqeen Institute. His criteria of right vs wrong is taken from George Bush. Whoever fawns on him is a good guy, and whoever is not a fanboy (even just advising him of an error) is a bad guy to be slandered. “ex” Shi’i Dan serves himself. It’s shocking that scholars amongst his fanboys had no insight to perceive the potential harms of this rot in him to the Ummah at large.

A Filthy Person

With his Mahdī complex, whatever he says and does is right, no matter how filthy and uncouth. e.g. Posting a video explicitly depicting a Hindu’s penis is all justified because “ex” Shīʿī Mahdī Dan is more pure than an angel. This is just a screenshot, with bottom cut off. I’ll not be posting penises.

His ego is so inflated, he does not have any etiquette in even addressing the Prophets.

Who is a Good Guy?

Yes, ʿUmar Sulaymān has definitely strayed from path of orthodoxy in the past, and Mahdī Dan rightfully took him to task, specifically in regards gender mixing and associating with LGBT.

On the other hand, the Mahdī is buddies with Paul Williams.

We all battle with some disease or the other. Mahdī’s buddy however is not satisfied with keeping his spiritual ailment private. Paul repeatedly and publicly announces that he’s gay, giving the disease a public respectability amongst impressionable fans.

So why the difference in treatment? The common factor in the Mahdī’s behaviour is: are your my fanboy (Paul) or not (ʿUmar)? This is but one example. You are welcome to research yourself and reach your own conclusions. For me, years’ of record shows that the Mahdī has his own agenda and is not a servant of Islām.

Hypocrisy in Whitewashing His Brothers

While on the topic of LGBT, there are positives of the Mahdī, which even opponents can’t deny. He is a relatively good debater and is extremely well informed. Why then he is able to sniff out any sign of gender infraction amongst Sunni scholars, yet remains thunderously silent on the permissibility of sex change operations amongst his beloved Shīʿah brothers and that Tehran, the capital of his homeland, has one of the highest rates of sex change operations in the world! Is this a servant of Islām or someone with his own agenda?

Absurd Mental Gymnastics

When the Mahdī can’t find genuine fault with his opponents, he has to perform amazing feats of mental gymnastics of truly record-breaking proportions. For example, they smile too much.

Yet smiling is ok for the Mahdī and Yāsir al-Smiley?

Again, any honest person who examines the record can only conclude that the only criteria of right and wrong for the Mahdī is whether you are his fanboy or not.

Flexibility With Facts

The Mahdī is flexible with facts defining truth to what suits him. For example, he is happy to be introduced as learned “Shaykh” on occasions, while on other occasions it is, “But I am not a scholar. You should ask the scholars.”

Although to be fair, this seems to be a common tactic amongst internet entertainers, e.g. Muḥammad Ḥijāb and Johnathan “right to insult the Prophet” (صلى الله عليه و سلم) Brown.  

Conclusion

The rot that was clear to see for anyone with even minimal insight has now erupted into the public sphere. “Ex” Shīʿī Dan is a more conniving source of fitnah than the “compassionates” he claims to fight on ideological grounds.

I have not even touched on his tacit support for the bloodthirsty Syrians and Chinese Communist regimes. Nor have I discussed the massacres and rape of Muslims in Syria, Iraq and Yemen that the Iran that he loves so much inflicts. Do your own research AND THINK. If you really care about your Dīn, it’s up to you to be on guard against this taqiyyah fitnah-monger who has crept in amongst our ranks. If your cyber idolatry means too much for you, then no tweet, no book will be enough to convince you.

سليمان الكندي

X: @Sulayman_Kindi