Daniel Haqiqatjou Interview with Sunni Discourse: 'From Shia to Sunni' What Did Y'all Think?

[Eddie Mecca]

Salaam,

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.

[pakistanyar]

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. 

Anyway what shocked me most was that  he even named his son Khalid and he has read Nahjul Balagah. 

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.  

Overall give it some time and you will see Haqiqatjou reform into a more Sufi type or Quranist. He really didn't say anything Kamal Hayderi doesn't say, nothing world changing. 

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. 

Edited November 20, 2020 by pakistanyar

[Ali bin Hussein]

I watched it. I thought he was sincere. The other guy made a few sarcastic and mocking points but Haqiqatjou didn't join him.

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. 

 

[pakistanyar]

one more thing, all the issues of ghlut and contradictions in hadith are  written on in iqraonline.com 

[MaisumAli]

I didn't watch the video, it's like a ln hour long, but is this Daniel guy like a big deal? 

1 hour ago, pakistanyar said:

I'm not going to discuss this topic but defer to Kamal Haderis view

What exactly is Sayed Kamal Haydari's views?

1 hour ago, pakistanyar said:

I'm surprised how common this practice is among  Iranians. I know people whose families who never visit masjids say "Ya Ali".

Saying "Ya Ali" or "Ya Hussain" as a form of Dua or prayer should be avoided, but saying Ya Ali itself as a slogan is actually the Sunnah of the Imams

"The slogan of al- Husayn, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, was, ‘O Muhammad!’ Our slogan is, ‘O Muhammad!”’- Imam as Sadiq(عليه السلام)

https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/5/1/21/1

 

1 hour ago, pakistanyar said:

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?

1 hour ago, pakistanyar said:

Anyway what shocked me most was that  he even named his son Khalid and he has read Nahjul Balagah

So how long ago was his conversion then?

1 hour ago, pakistanyar said:

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.

Good prediction, I honestly think we need more polemical channels to combat thier propoganda

1 hour ago, pakistanyar said:

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

Isn't that Sharia law thou?

[MaisumAli]

44 minutes ago, Warilla said:

I watched it. I thought he was sincere. The other guy made a few sarcastic and mocking points but Haqiqatjou didn't join him.

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. 

 

Interesting, so you were born Twelver, but what made you leave? And what made you think that the succession of Ali(عليه السلام) was not just another "Shia Lie"

[pakistanyar]

 

23 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

Isn't that Sharia law thou?

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.

Edited November 20, 2020 by pakistanyar

[Muhammed Ali]

2 hours ago, pakistanyar said:

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.

I watched some parts. He praised the channel and said he wanted to support them. That doesn't sound very good.

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.

[Zaydism]

1 minute ago, Muhammed Ali said:

I wonder if he would be willing to debate someone from the community.

His encounter with Tawhidi I presume left a bad taste in his mouth.

[pakistanyar]

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. 

Edited November 20, 2020 by pakistanyar

[Ali bin Hussein]

1 hour ago, MaisumAli said:

Interesting, so you were born Twelver, but what made you leave? And what made you think that the succession of Ali(عليه السلام) was not just another "Shia Lie"

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.

The superiority of Imam Ali is found across all madhabs. And many hadith about Imam Ali linked to ayats.

But if you take zaidi aqeeda you don't need to use any zaidi literature. Enough proofs found in the books of others.

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by Warilla

[Ali bin Hussein]

3 hours ago, pakistanyar said:

. I propose that they intend to proselytize among American Iranians. 

Good point

That's definitely a vulnerable group among Shia and maybe a doorway into attempting conversion in Iran it self.

[MaisumAli]

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

[Eddie Mecca]

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 https://muslimskeptic.com/ 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 

[Ashvazdanghe]

12 hours ago, pakistanyar said:

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.

Salam majority of "American  Iranians " are not practicing  muslims even they rarely interested to watch or listen to religious  channels that their presence  in religious  matters only is limited during Muharam for receiving  food for blessing & making marriage valid by reciting  Khutba  but there is anti Iran regime channels that they are trying to show Islam specifically Shia Islam as  religion of Arabs plus governmental  religion that Iranians must reject it due to pan Iranism & anti regime propaganda  that they mix & reedit videoclips from wahabi/Salafi & Shirazi grouplet videos like Tatbir or their weired Fatwas   to show it as common religious practice in Iran to keep away "American  Iranians " from Islam even make hate of Islam specifically Shia Islam in their hearts. 

9 hours ago, Warilla said:

Good point

That's definitely a vulnerable group among Shia and maybe a doorway into attempting conversion in Iran it self.

They have no influence for conversion   in Iran but their attempt just helps anti religious  channels to weaken religion  between younger genration in Iran.

[BleedKnee]

Personally, I don't really like the guy. He seems like a man whose trying to bring the American culture wars to mainstream Islamic discourse and it's just annoying. 

Obviously, I get why conservative Muslims have an issue with LGBT+ stuff and so forth. But Islam isn't just a carbon copy of Christianity with the Tawhid replacing Trinity. The way we approach the culture wars need not be the same as Christian Evangelicals. Also, to say that the biggest danger to people now is not oppressive despots, gun violence or poverty, but some rando thirteen year old girl who wants you to refer to her with they/them pronouns is incredibly problematic. It's also the best way to lose adherents to the deen, by not confronting the true evils of today's age. 

Muslims would do better to avoid Daniel's way of things. Same goes by the way with Sh.Abdul Hakim Murad atm, who seems to be leaning towards the culture wars more and more. 

[zahralzu]

Personally, I appreciated how genuine daniel seemed, and how he wasn't so toxic to the shias and didn't feel the need to turn against the sect after leaving it, I even saw some comments saying they don't trust he's 'actually' left given he wasn't willing to 'announce' and 'emphasise' his love for abu bakr, nor was he willing to declare shias as 'kafir', I even saw daniel slightly cringe when he was asked weather it was the 'pure monotheism aspect of sunni slam' that attracted him away from shiasm, and said he never considered himself to not be a monotheist.

on the negatives I was a little taken back when farid and his friends celebrated on twitter the fact that ammar nakshawani had somewhat to do with his conversion, they've always been so threatened by him, and wasn't convinced by why he decided to leave; that kafi had too many fabrications, yet, considered bukhari to be any less corrupt...

They then go on to discuss why the rate of apostasies of Iran are staggering and higher than any other muslim country in the world and tbh I kinda began to panic, why the number of shia apostates??

[pakistanyar]

On 12/6/2020 at 4:09 PM, BleedKnee said:

Also, to say that the biggest danger to people now is not oppressive despots, gun violence or poverty, but some rando thirteen year old girl who wants you to refer to her with they/them pronouns is incredibly problematic. It's also the best way to lose adherents to the deen, by not confronting the true evils of today's age. 

At least in the US the Shias are headed in the right direction, there are at least 3 Shia Law Student Organizations highlighting things like prision reform, poverty, racial injustice. American Muslim Bar Association is one and there are a few others. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by pakistanyar

[Reza]

On 12/6/2020 at 6:09 PM, BleedKnee said:

Personally, I don't really like the guy. He seems like a man whose trying to bring the American culture wars to mainstream Islamic discourse and it's just annoying. 

Islam surely has perspectives on these issues, and can serve as a friendly outside perspective, but putting itself center stage is faulty, I agree. The American culture wars are a product of a different history, belief system, and set of values that must sort itself out, with its own methodologies. If it wants to adopt Islamic approaches later, sure. But no need for Muslims to impose themselves into it prematurely, beyond interested spectator.  

Maybe I'm wrong. 

[Reza]

16 hours ago, zahralzu said:

They then go on to discuss why the rate of apostasies of Iran are staggering and higher than any other muslim country in the world and tbh I kinda began to panic, why the number of shia apostates??

Likely reasons:

1. These "apostacies" are given more publicity. 

2. Iran is more open and free compared to other Muslim countries (contrary to media depictions), and people are more comfortable with open apostasy then say, Saudi Arabia or Egypt, so they feel freer to express it.

3. There has always been some secular/liberal currents in society, which is to be expected considering a long history of secularist monarchy rule and Western globalization. 

OR

This is a bunch of biased people making stuff up or being misleading with facts. 

[Reza]

As for Daniel, if he spent more time studying Shiism from primary sources, and spent less time in the Sunni/Salafist/Deen Show media bubble, liberal academic bubbles, and progressive culture war bubbles, it would do him much better.

Any "conversion story" that doesn't emphasize one's persistence to practice and sincerely understand their original faith as much as possible, is nothing more than cheap exploitation by its promoters. It's obvious his knowledge of Shiism was quite superficial. But these tribalists whose beliefs are reduced to "my side good, other side bad", this doesn't matter to them. All that matters is a win for their tribe. A win is a win. Their narrative confirmed. 

[313_Waiter]

On 11/21/2020 at 9:26 AM, pakistanyar said:

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. 

On 11/21/2020 at 6:51 AM, pakistanyar said:

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

I mean, I wouldn’t call it ISIS, I’d just call it traditionalist. All of the things you mentioned exist in Shi’a Islam too, though it could be argued some of them can only be carried out in the presence of the infallible, or that other things are contextual: 

• When it comes to polygamy, it is Sunnah of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and the Imams ((عليه السلام)).
• As for beheading, this exists in Sharia, as well as much more severe punishments for crimes (like throwing off a very high place, burning etc.)
• Slavery also exists and scholars like Ayatullah Sayyid ʿAbdul Ḥusayn Dastghayb Shirazi allowed it in these times given that the person is not under any treaty with the non-muslim or that the non-muslim is not a Dhimmi:

Quote

Q.58: Is the buying and selling of slaves lawful in this age also? ls it allowed to apprehend people from Africa etc. and sell them in other places?

Freeing of slaves as expiation for lapsed fasts is ordered in the Holy Quran. If this order is permanent, it has become impracticable today.

A: Yes, it is permissible for a Muslim to apprehend an original disbeliever in any way and from anywhere and enslave him provided he is not under treaty or responsibility of any Muslim (Zimmi). After that his buying and selling is allowed.

As for the obligation of freeing a slave as expiation in times like this when no slave is available, since slavery is banned, the obligation of freeing of slaves too has been dropped due to impracticabi lity. Its substitute is also not available and in this matter there is no difference between optional expiation and total expiation.

https://www.al-islam.org/82-questions-ayatullah-sayyid-abdul-husayn-dastghaib-shirazi/jurisprudence-fiqh#wisdom-behind-slave-freeing-islam

That being said most maraji say we need to obey the law of the land.

• As for hand cutting, in Ja’fari fiqh the four fingers other than the thumb are to be cut.

On 11/21/2020 at 8:48 AM, pakistanyar said:

  Even the marriage age in Iran is legally 16? while islamicaly its 9.

I have heard it is 13 lunar years for women and 15 lunar years for men but the court can be petitioned to reduce the women’s age given the guardian’s consent (as Islamically there is no set age for marriage but there is for consummation).
 

These punishments might seem very severe, but there are many conditions that ought to be met.  To understand the wisdom behind such laws this is a nice read:

Quote

The wisdom behind Islamic criminal laws is more of prevention and protection of community’s security rather than executing a punishment. Thus, although Islamic retributions sound violent, in practice Islam has set forth rigorous requirements to prove a crime. For example, theoretically the punishment of adultery ( زنا المحصنة  is illegal sex committed by a person – male or female- who is permanently married) is stoning, however, to prove the crime either four just male eye witnesses must be present together before the judge to testify that they witnessed the actual fornication and their testimony is exactly the same – if only three just male eye witnesses appear before the court and offer their testimony they will be held liable to punishment-, another way to prove a crime is if the suspect appears before the court on four different occasions and willingly confesses the crime. Even if one of the parties involved confesses the crime the law will be executed only on him/her.

 

Punishment for theft is another example. Theoretically its punishment is amputation of the right four fingers – administered under anesthetics. However, the law will not be executed unless about 15 conditions are met. For example, the law will not be executed during a famine if the stolen item is a necessity of life, or if the thief repents before the case is brought before a judge, the case will be dismissed, etc.

 

Studying the practice of Ahlul-Bayt ((عليه السلام)) leaves us with no doubt that the criminal laws have been only executed as the very last resort when all other preventing factors fail. The Imams of Ahlul-Bayt ((عليه السلام)) would let go of a case once the signs of regret would appear or when there would be any doubt about the certainty of an accusation. It is narrated from the holy Prophet (P): “Dismiss a punishment when there is a doubt.” (al-Faqih, vol. 4, p.74).

 

The following story is a prime example of the Islamic approach towards the execution of a crime.

 

Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام)) narrated: “A man appeared before Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) while he was with his companions, confessing: O Amirul-Mo’meneen I have slept with aboy (i.e homosexuality), please purify me. The Imam said to him: Go back home, I’m afraid you have lost your sanity. The next day the same man appeared before the Imam with the same confession, and Imam gave him the same reply. It was until when he appeared before the Imam for the fourth time that the Imam replied: How would you like to be punished? The man said: in the most severe way. The Imam said: that is to burn by fire. He said: I choose that. He then offered two Rak’at prayers and in his Qonoot said: “O Allah! I’ve committed a capital sin and I am concerned about its consequences. O Allah! I came to the successor and the cousin of your Prophet to purify me, and I’ve chosen the most severe punishment. O Allah! I beg you to access this as my retribution and do not burn me in the Hell-Fire in the hereafter. He then finished his prayer and stepped into the punishing pitch while he was crying. Observing the scene ImamAli ((عليه السلام)) and his companions were all in tears. Then the Imam said to the man: Come out! Indeed you made the angels of heaven and earth cry for you. Lo! Allah has forgiven you, but never do such things again.” (al-Kaafi 7:202).

 

http://www.askthesheikh.com/why-is-sharia-law-so-violent-like-stoning-cutting-of-hands-and-lashing/

 

 

[Ali bin Hussein]

10 hours ago, Reza said:

As for Daniel, if he spent more time studying Shiism from primary sources, and spent less time in the Sunni/Salafist/Deen Show media bubble, liberal academic bubbles, and progressive culture war bubbles, it would do him much better.

 

I think this is too dismissive. As he is more learned then the average layman.

Also he disagree with Shia on an aqeeda level.

Aqeeda doesn't require extensive study otherwise it would be impossible for the average layman do decide on which scholars to follow, without blindly following them in aqeeda,which would be cyclic.

[313_Waiter]

On 11/21/2020 at 9:20 AM, Mohammad313Ali said:

His encounter with Tawhidi I presume left a bad taste in his mouth.

Even the atheist was surprised at Tawhidi at one point during the encounter as to how he is still muslim:

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiX3Iv85cDtAhWYc30KHbZuCKYQtwIwAHoECAYQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2FAtheistRepublic%2Fvideos%2F2118617501689170%2F&usg=AOvVaw3exj5Ik5eGNPsGhca82_0l

[Muhammed Ali]

1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

Even the atheist was surprised at Tawhidi at one point during the encounter as to how he is still muslim:

 

Tawhidi most probably doesn't hold those views. He has an anti-Sunni and an anti-Iran agenda which he wants to promote by pretending to be some kind of 'liberal' Muslim. And the non-Muslims have fallen for it. Do more research into what caused him to propagate these views. 

[313_Waiter]

17 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Tawhidi most probably doesn't hold those views. He has an anti-Sunni and an anti-Iran agenda which he wants to promote by pretending to be some kind of 'liberal' Muslim. And the non-Muslims have fallen for it. Do more research into what caused him to propagate these views. 

Yes, I know. He even used to be against Zionism but changed his views. 

Nonetheless, I’m not sure where the agenda is coming from, and I don’t want to defame the Shirazi family.

[Muhammed Ali]

1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

Yes, I know. He even used to be against Zionism but changed his views. 

Nonetheless, I’m not sure where the agenda is coming from, and I don’t want to defame the Shirazi family.

Technically he probably hasn't changed his views. He is probably still anti-Zionism. We have the story of Bahlool who used to pretend all the time. Tawhidi has managed to get more attention than the respectable scholars. The question is, is this strategy actually working? 

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

I honestly don’t care about the SD. I commented on their vids and exposed them, they delete my comments. It is actually hilarious. And they claim to be “Ahlul Sunnah wa al Jama’a”. I know Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) let other people try to speak what they think is right and then guide them. Guidance in their eyes is calling someone a heretic thinking they will become Sunni.

[El Cid]

Personally I don't like any of these speakers. All these "Islamic youtubers" to me is just a pompous display of ignorance. They aren't interested in anything other than promoting their own selves while using Islam as a means to do so. If you go on their twitter, whether it's this Daniel guy or that Hijab guy or anyone else. They are all abusing and cursing other people on twitter whether it's Shia/Athiest/Chris/Jew/Anyone. It's their way or the high way. Nothing else.

One of the things that I agree with Ayatallah Khameini is that all these issues should be debated by professionals from both sides(Sunni and Shia) with professionals referring to respected Scholars who have dedicated their lives to their sect aka a Mufti/Ayatallah. All of these debates/interviews are just back-alley brawls and street fights where the main topic is just to slander/curse/ridicule. All of Hijab's videos look like rap battles if you mute them or look from afar.

[313_Waiter]

2 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Technically he probably hasn't changed his views. He is probably still anti-Zionism. We have the story of Bahlool who used to pretend all the time. Tawhidi has managed to get more attention than the respectable scholars. The question is, is this strategy actually working? 

I don’t think he could be compared to Hazrat Bahlool (rad) at all. I think he has simply given Islamophobes confirmation about their prejudices against Islam and Muslims as well as sowing discord between Shias and Sunnis.

[Reza]

11 hours ago, Warilla said:

I think this is too dismissive. As he is more learned then the average layman.

Also he disagree with Shia on an aqeeda level.

Aqeeda doesn't require extensive study otherwise it would be impossible for the average layman do decide on which scholars to follow, without blindly following them in aqeeda,which would be cyclic.

I'm not denying his credentials and what he's learned, especially in the topics he's chosen to focus on. I'm merely saying his talents are better suited elsewhere, and studying an important school of Islamic thought is more valuable than the new social justice conspiracy. 

It's problematic however to be presented as an "ex-Shia" while also being introduced as an academic, where there's an expectation that more study and reflection has been done than an average layperson. That's why his "conversion story" is supposed to carry more weight with the listeners. That's why they had him on. I'm skeptical, and I think his relationship with Shiism was superficial and culturally prejudicial (ie his attempt at reconciliation before "conversion" was not sufficient). He's free to pursue his life how he wants, but being used to push a sectarian agenda is not appropriate, and he himself probably would agree. 

[Ali bin Hussein]

11 minutes ago, Reza said:

That's why his "conversion story" is supposed to carry more weight with the listeners. That's why they had him on. I'm skeptical, and I think his relationship with Shiism was superficial and culturally prejudicial . 

I understand but the argument can be used both ways. And both sides can be dismissive.

I think the only true message you can take from a conversion story is from curiosity. Don't be dismissive try to understand the other view point. It will either strengthen your faith or give you a new path to look into.

 

[Eddie Mecca]

10 hours ago, El Cid said:

Personally I don't like any of these speakers. All these "Islamic youtubers

There's a hadith regarding the 'End Times' that says the people (i.e. Muslims) will stop listening to the true academics and scholars and the popularity of 'juveniles' (regarded to be experts in religion) will increase (paraphrasing). I believe it's referring to the modern-day "da'wah carrier" YouTube phenomenon.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

Here's the interview in it's entirety for those who haven't watched it yet  

 

[Eddie Mecca]

19 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

I wouldn’t call it ISIS, I’d just call it traditionalist. All of the things you mentioned exist in Shi’a Islam too,

Yeah, exactly bro...I always mention this to Shi'a or modernists or secularists who are quick to criticize Sunnis who espouse the traditionalist stance on a particular subject without realizing the inherent double-standard...we need to ponder deeply before attacking verbally...we (i.e. Shi'a) believe in hudud as well...as far as "head chopping" is concerned...Imam Ali (peace be upon him) killed most of his foes with  Zūl-Faqār did he not? I know he chopped one guy's legs off (at the knee) and in another instance he cut a guy completely in half (down the middle)...war is an unfortunate reality of life...but the point is why is dropping white phosphorous or shooting someone with an AK-47 or sanctioning a nation to death considered 'modern' and 'stylish' and 'humane' but cutting someone with a sword is automatically seen as 'barbaric'?? I don't understand the reasoning...as far as slavery is concerned...Islamic slavery is nothing like the Transatlantic slave trade and is basically tantamount to prisoners of war (POW's)…on the battlefield in real time you have three options with the captured enemy combatant...either: 1.) kill the him on the spot or 2.) allow him to go free and rejoin the opposition 3.) take him as a prisoner of war...Islam sees no. 3 as the best viable option.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Eddie Mecca