"The DISHONESTY of DANIEL HAQIQATJOU"

[Omar del Sur]

I'm not super familiar with Saajid Lipham but he's right in what he says here.

 

[Omar del Sur]

just from my own viewpoint, part of my problem with this Haqiqatjou movement of "let's start inciting against governments of Muslim countries and calling everyone who doesn't agree bootlickers".... it is like one of those historical peasant rebellions. it's a movement of commoners, it's like riling up a bunch of illiterate peasants...

no one who is an actual scholar is with this. it's random people on social media. or for example.... the other day I met a met a guy who claims to be a devout Muslim but also is trying to be a "gangsta rapper".... and he was supporting this kind of ideology.

you can get these kinds of people onboard and people who don't know very much... but none of the actual scholars or the people who have actual knowledge are in line with this.... and then as though that's not bad enough, you're not only going to have a movement of commoners but you're going to rile them up against the people who have actual knowledge and make them feel bold enough to call them "bootlickers".... "let's incite the commoners against the people with actual knowledge and then the people will be exclusively led by the commoners instead of scholars...."

it reminds me of the French revolution when they incited the peasants into killing their nobles and priests.... I saw someone say "Sheikh Fawzan is a munafiq".... it won't stop there.... when people do their homework, they'll realize that pretty much all the historical scholars would be "bootlickers" according to the standards of the Haqiqatjou peasant uprising...

the thing I find very ironic is Haqiqatjou is supposed to be this big fighter against liberal thought... but actually, the mindset he promotes traces back to liberal thought..... in traditional society, people didn't want to rise up against the monarchies.... even if the monarch was wicked, people generally didn't want to rebel and pushing for rebellion was seen very badly....

it is only with the "Enlightenment" that rebellion came to be seen as this glorious and noble thing and being passive with the rulers was seen as humiliating or shameful... "bootlicking".... it goes back to classical liberalism, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, etc... the khawarij would be an exception... but because this general mindset was mainstreamed by classical liberalism and "the enlightenment".... that is a reason why- it isn't a thing amongst classical Islamic scholars... it's a mentality that came from classical liberalism