A Houston-born lecturer on Islam, Daniel Haqiqatjou, brazenly defends the right to wife-beating in Islam. Watch as he attempts to make an absurd moral equivalence on the basis of the fact that there are also penalties and consequences for breaking laws in democracies.
Beating one’s wife is a criminal act in the West because women are equals under the law, and they are protected from abuse; yet Haqiqatjou counsels the committal of this crime, which is based on Qur’an 4:34, without consequence. He should be investigated for defending spousal abuse.
In March 2020, the Muslim Student Association at York University in Toronto, Canada invited Haqiqathjou as a featured guest speaker for Islamic Awareness Week. It should come as no surprise that Haqiqatjou is also antisemitic, as antisemitism is a feature of Islamic teachings. Opposition to his antisemitism resulted in the cancelation of his engagement at York University.
The Jewish Defence League (JDL) was first out of the gate, publicizing an email letter to York University president Rhonda Lenton that called on her to cancel the event while noting, “Jewish students on campus have been victims of anti-Semitism for far too long.”
Outcry from other Jewish groups also contributed to the event’s cancelation. But Haqiqatjou continues to defend Sharia. He also defends slavery, including sex slavery, under Sharia, and he saluted Brunei for implementing the Sharia stoning of gays.
Frank Anderson says
For HIM to say anything else is reform or apostasy under islamic law. But under the law of civilized societies, what he advocates is contrary to the law enforced here. Beating is illegal, male or female for any reason. Slavery is illegal, whatever the purpose. Advocating islam is advocating crimes against humanity. Look at the definitions and descriptions! Since people are actually committing these crimes, all who promote them are part of a criminal conspiracy. Take a few minutes to search and read the case from the Southern District of Alabama, “United States v. Gary Greenough” to see that criminal liability does not stop with the people who “do the deeds”, but includes those who promote, foster, encourage or shelter them from law enforcement. “The Knowledge of ONE is the Knowledge of ALL. The ACTS of ONE are the Acts of ALL.” Islam is a criminal conspiracy that has lasted 1400 years, presently involving more or less 1.5 Billion/Milliard people, which has killed between 250 and 1000 MILLION people. Whether it is a “religion” or not, it is not shielded from criminal law.
mortimer says
Frank Anderson writes a good summary: “Advocating islam is advocating crimes against humanity.”
Would that CNN and MSNBC would interview honest Muslims like Daniel Haqiqatjou, instead of professional liars like Mehdi Hasan. We would at last have an honest discussion about Islam.
Frank Anderson says
mortimer, I think that exposing the truth should not be left to liars. I love the teaching I heard frequently in a community where I am no longer tolerated: “If not now, When? If not me, Who?” The best way to keep something from being done, and done correctly is to leave it to someone else.
Possibly useful illustration. I had 35 quarter hours of computer language and application courses in college. I was pretty good at it. I was hired to write a program that 6 people had tried to write for a year. They never figured out how to use the Fortran compiler, and never with all their collected talent and wisdom understood the problem. Six people, one year, nothing.
I had seen the data preparation for a similar program written by highly skilled “professionals” for use on a machine with essentially unlimited power and resources. The machine I had was far less powerful (16 bit processor, 24K memory) than today’s watch. I walked around the office, studying how information was handled and thinking about the program. I also conquered using the machine and compiler. Then in 1 day, I wrote the program, the largest that could be handled by the IBM Sys/3 Fortran compiler. It took a week to keypunch it onto 96 column cards, and another week to find the period that should have been a comma. In 6 weeks I performed what my boss gave me 6 months to do or leave quietly.
I have found a number of times, in a number of different places and settings that we do our best work when we do it ourselves.
James Lincoln says
Frank Anderson,
President Theodore Roosevelt once said:
“Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”
You accomplished that with a 16 bit PC.
Great work!
gravenimage says
Great exchange!
Doomer says
To be honest,I have never heard him say anything antisemitic. I listen to his videos regularly.I have never even heard him say something against Israel. But he does speak a lot against what he calls “liberalism”.
When you analyze it,he means the progressive ,leftist movement. Leftists now call themselves liberals.
And he denounces Ihan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Linda Sarsour for being pro-LGBT.
He is American,of non-religious Iranian parents. His last name is Haqiqatju( Ha-ki-ka-chu ), it means “Truth of reality” in Arabic. There could be a new debate coming up, between him and Islamic law expert and,believe it not, sincere believer in human rights, Muslim intellectual Sarah Eltantawi.
Daniel Haqiqatju has challenged her to a debate about Sharia vs human rights.Like the one he had with ex-Muslim,atheist from Pakistan Harris Sultan.She had seen the debate and wrote scorn and contempt about what Daniel’s ideas.
Here is his challenge to her,”Daniel Haqiqatjou Challenges Sarah Eltantawi For a Debate!”
https://youtu.be/YvXs9Ydo8rg
gravenimage says
Doomer, you sound like a big fan of Daniel Haqiqatjou.
As for the idea that Haqiqatjou has never said anything against Israel, you have either missed this, or else have an odd view of things. In a Tweet he wrote: “The Jewish ethnostate mocks the Quran while murdering believers”. Sounds pretty negative to me–not to mention utterly false.
Here’s more:
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Two-Islamic-Leaders-who-have-made-anti-Jewish–anti-Christian-and-anti-Gay-statements-are-invited-to-York-University-Wednesday-M.html?soid=1115794660241&aid=n1BkMMXjq4M
Of course, he is in a way right about Sarah Eltanawi–what she presents as Shari’ah law is whitewashed and bowdlerized. That does not make the vicious Haqiqatjou a good guy, though.
Doomer says
No I am not a fan of Daniel,but some of the things he says are correct from what we know about social sciences,etc. Personally,I think he will eventually leave Islam,he seems too smart for it. Leave it because unlike Eltanawi, he doesn’t fool and delusion himself about what historical,standard, majority opinion, Islam and its laws have always been.
The info from the JDL in the link is convincing enough to me,though in his case he certainly doesn’t talk much about Jews as a whole.He is not obsessed with them as are Ilhan Omar,Tlaib and Sarsour. He is more interested in Sharia.
The refreshing thing about him and his friends Farid,Mohammed Hijab and Subbhoor Ahmed is that they are frank in publicly supporting mainstream Sharia,and also in stating that the argument Sharia is bad because it goes against human rights is indulging in essentially a strange argument.
They don’t believe in human rights because they know it is basically an invention. The second greatest name in Liberalism is John Stuart Mill,who was a utilitarian and agnostic. He was for adopting something,like human rights, because it was pragmatic,useful. That is enough for me.
Mill wrote “On Liberty” and was in favor of women’s emancipation and giving them the right to vote.
He created the Harm Principle, stating one can do what one desires as long as you don’t go against the human rights of others.
But Mill knew human rights falls into the category of the Noble Lie.
The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in The Republic. Plato believed sometimes a Noble Lie is necessary,a pious fiction presented as true with an altruistic motivation.
My impression is Farid,Daniel,Subbhoor and Mohammed Hijab will eventually leave Islam.
Regarding J S Mill, he contradicted himself,in spite of being for human rights, he justified and approved of British colonialism and imperialism in India. He should have said that it was essentially wrong,contrary to human rights, and should eventually, in a generation or two, be terminated.
There is a speech given by a friend of Daniel,by Mohammed Hijab where he says,in effect, when you analyze it, why he doesn’t believes in human rights. The title is “liberalism: White Colonialist’s New Religion”.
The essence of Liberalism is the concept of human rights. But when you reject it has a theological basis,better said, a Christian dogma called man is in the image of God,then it crumbles like a rag doll. Islam is theistic,but they reject the doctrine of people created in the image of God.
https://youtu.be/2Dyzc282ZFE
gravenimage says
Doomer wrote:
No I am not a fan of Daniel,but some of the things he says are correct from what we know about social sciences,etc.
…………………………..
Really? Would that be his support for wife beating? For marital rape? For pedophilia? For murdering homosexuals?
If by social sciences you mean that they show that these horrors are rife in Muslim countries, this is true, God knows…
More:
Personally,I think he will eventually leave Islam,he seems too smart for it. Leave it because unlike Eltanawi, he doesn’t fool and delusion himself about what historical,standard, majority opinion, Islam and its laws have always been.
…………………………..
Haqiqathjou loves the horrors of Islam, and spends all his time defending this barbarism. The idea that if someone knows what Islam actually calls for then they will hate it actually makes no sense–were this true, Jihad would not exist. The fact is that pious Muslims know about the savagery of Islam, and like it that way. They want to impose this on us.
More:
The info from the JDL in the link is convincing enough to me,though in his case he certainly doesn’t talk much about Jews as a whole.He is not obsessed with them as are Ilhan Omar,Tlaib and Sarsour. He is more interested in Sharia.
…………………………..
Under Sharia Jews are persecuted dhimmis, or dead.
More:
The refreshing thing about him and his friends Farid,Mohammed Hijab and Subbhoor Ahmed is that they are frank in publicly supporting mainstream Sharia,and also in stating that the argument Sharia is bad because it goes against human rights is indulging in essentially a strange argument.
…………………………..
He and his Jihadist buddies are just emboldened. Muslims ony use Taqiyya wen they feel the Infidels are strong. This is not actually refreshing, unless you love the idea of Sharia.
Then, the idea that Sharia is bad because it goes against human rights being a “strange argument” is pretty sick. Actually, most Anti-Jihadists oppose Jihad and Sharia for just these reasons.
We believe that wife beating, pedophila, slaughtering Infidels, and murdering gay people is *morally wrong*. The question is why you do not.
More:
They don’t believe in human rights because they know it is basically an invention. The second greatest name in Liberalism is John Stuart Mill,who was a utilitarian and agnostic. He was for adopting something,like human rights, because it was pragmatic,useful. That is enough for me.
Mill wrote “On Liberty” and was in favor of women’s emancipation and giving them the right to vote.
He created the Harm Principle, stating one can do what one desires as long as you don’t go against the human rights of others.
…………………………..
I am quite familiar with John Stuart Mill.
More:
But Mill knew human rights falls into the category of the Noble Lie.
The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in The Republic. Plato believed sometimes a Noble Lie is n ecessary,a pious fiction presented as true with an altruistic motivation.
…………………………..
Yes, Mill did indeed defend Plato’s concept of the “noble lie”–something I disagree with, incidentally.
But he never said that his concept of human rights was a “noble lie” as you imply.
Besides, your idea that proponents of human rights believe that they are telling lies makes no sense–what ulterior motive do they have?
More:
My impression is Farid,Daniel,Subbhoor and Mohammed Hijab will eventually leave Islam.
…………………………..
You say this again–right after claiming that human rights are a falsehood and do not exist. So why *shouldn’t* these pious Muslims enslave women and rape them? And rape children? And murder unbelievers and gays? On what basis would they leave, if not a moral basis?
Islam actually sacralizes this savagery.
More:
Regarding J S Mill, he contradicted himself,in spite of being for human rights, he justified and approved of British colonialism and imperialism in India. He should have said that it was essentially wrong,contrary to human rights, and should eventually, in a generation or two, be terminated.
…………………………..
He believed that colonized peoples benefited from imperial intervention. I do not entirely agree with this, but this does not actually contradict his moral views.
More:
There is a speech given by a friend of Daniel,by Mohammed Hijab where he says,in effect, when you analyze it, why he doesn’t believes in human rights. The title is “liberalism: White Colonialist’s New Religion”.
The essence of Liberalism is the concept of human rights. But when you reject it has a theological basis,better said, a Christian dogma called man is in the image of God,then it crumbles like a rag doll. Islam is theistic,but they reject the doctrine of people created in the image of God.
https://youtu.be/2Dyzc282ZFE
…………………………..
Again, you cite a Muslim thug asserting that Infidels have no right to defend human rights–or even to question Islam about not having human rights to begin with–and who doesn’t believe in human rights himself (this is of course perfectly Islamic).
Really, I am at a loss as to why you are so impressed with this Islamic savagery. Islam wants to destroy human rights, and replace it with the barbarism of Sharia law. I don’t actually consider this a good thing. And Muslims don’t want Jews or Christians defending human rights, either.
I imagine you live in a nation that generally upholds human rights. Would you *really* prefer to live in a place that embraces Fascism, or Nazism, or Islam? Do you *really* want to live in a place where you can be oppressed, summarily imprisoned, or enslaved, or raped, or murdered? I actually doubt it.
And I know that *I* sure as hell don’t want this. That is why I stand for civilized values against Islam.
mortimer says
Reply to Doomer: The JDL doesn’t go about making false, unverified claims. It is a very serious outfit. When they make an accusation, it STICKS, because true!
Quoted from : https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/controversial-speaker-will-not-present-at-york
“The Jewish Defence League (JDL) was first out of the gate, publicizing an email letter to York University president Rhonda Lenton that called on her to cancel the event while noting, “Jewish students on campus have been victims of anti-Semitism for far too long.”
“The JDL cited several problematic statements made by Haqiqatjou, a Houston-born lecturer on Islam.
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center (FSWC) also called on Lenton to cancel the on-campus event, arguing that Haqiqatjou was “known for anti-Semitic and homophobic rhetoric.” Haqiqatjou’s speech in Mississauga, Ont. scheduled for March 5 was also cancelled, FSWC reported.
The Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation (CAEF) wrote to Lenton, also asking her to prevent the speaking engagement.
Permitting Haqiqatjou to speak on campus would point out “the travesty to Canadian values of inclusivity and tolerance and the likelihood that such speeches could jeopardize the safety of Jewish students on campus,” CAEF said.”
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
Debate? Daniel Haqiqatjou claims those who won’t debate him are cowards. So why doesn’t he debate with ROBERT SPENCER and show his stuff with someone ready to beat him in debate in five minutes.
Doomer says
I would really love to see that debate,I think they would agree 95% on what true Islam says,their only difference being that one sees that 95% as true and good,the other as it being bad and false.
maria says
Well NO muslim even if he/she was born in the US is American. Does not matter what his parents say that they are non religious. If the islamwill spread they will show their true muslim colors.
The creature Haqiqatjou and his whole clan should be sent to Iran or Pakistan or to Sahara if no muslim country want them.
somehistory says
“Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks (Jesus Christ).”
Jesus cited “wicked reasonings,” and other evil that fit this scum, as coming out of the mouth because it is abundant in the heart.
He will be judged on his heart condition.
gravenimage says
American Islamic spokesman defends wife-beating as a right on the basis of Islamic law
………….
HIs claim that the state beats women is of course claptrap–and the idea that state laws are harsher than are abusive spouses, which is just bizarre. The state does not beat women for burning dinner or objecting to forced sex–not the state in civilized nations, in any case.
Note that he does not think that Muslims should be beaten by their wives. This violence all goes one way in Islam–against the more vulnerable, women and children and religious and tribal minorities.
His claim that corporations beat their employees is also bizarre and, needless to say, false.
Daniel Haqiqatjou has also defended slavery, sex slavery, and marital rape. All perfectly Islamic.
Also perfectly Islamic is his defense of child rape:
“Daniel Haqiqatjou defends child marriage”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-M9tOnhk20&ab_channel=FromIslamtoChrist
This is more with Harris Sultan.
He says this is all about men “maximizing fertility”. Even if one accepts the idea of allowing child rape to accomplish this–obviously grotesque–it is also bullsh*t on its face. Few nine-year-old children can get pregnant–little Aisha, raped by the “Prophet” Muhammed, certainly couldn’t. In fact, if may be her being raped from the age of nine that led to her infertility. She never had children. (Harris Sultan mentions this).
Haqiqatjou claims that if men wait until women are adults that this will lead to the exteniction of the population. This makes no sense. Even marrying at 25–the beyond-the-pale age he cites–a woman could have 12-15 children or more while she is still fertile, if this was her main aim.
He then claims that raping nine-year-old children is “wholesome”.
Ecosse1314 says
As an aside GI. I always believed Aisha was 9 years old when she was raped by mo. Wasnt it in lunar years thus making her only slightly over the age of 8 and a quarter. Could be wrong though
gravenimage says
This is true, Ecosse. Aisha may actually have been as young as eight. Just horrifying in any case.
Ecosse1314 says
Doesnt make much difference to the horrific act. Just makes it slightly more barbaric. If indeed that is possible
gravenimage says
He is also a big fan of stoning gay people to death:
“American Muslim scholar salutes Brunei for reinstating law on stoning gays”
https://news.acdemocracy.org/american-muslim-scholar-salutes-brunei-for-reinstating-law-on-stoning-gays/
Walter Sieruk says
That Muslim scholar is right when he said that Islam permits wife-beating. This is because Islam is a religion of brutal misogyny.
Eleanor says
If he is an American of non religious Iranian parents, then he is a convert to Islam. I haven’t done any research into his background, but he gives me the creeps.
mortimer says
Daniel Haqiqatjou is a rare thing … a Muslim who speaks openly about what Sharia law teaches. The others whitewash discriminatory Sharia law.
Sharia law removes the human rights of women and ‘others’. Daniel Haqiqatjou thinks that is great and he openly defends this Bronze-Age Death Cult.
tgusa says
Good Lord, these people could not be more brazen idiots. That is good news. This is America not crapstanistan mister.
jim says
There should not be so much Muslim immigration to the US, if this is how they abuse the privilege of living here.
OLD GUY says
Yep ladies this is your future under islamic law. Oh he left out honor killing of wives and children also being a basis of islamic law. America doesn’t need islam in our neighborhoods, it is incompatible with freedom.
OLD GUY says
A right of islamic law? WOW I didn’t know Islamic law supersedes all other countries laws. What he left out was that islamic law also allows child marriages, honor killing of wives and daughters, and brutality towards anyone who disagrees with islam and Mohammad. Allah must really not like women, because he has give man total control over their minds and bodies. Kinda like slaves.
These Islamic practices do not belong in America or any other country that values freedom of life.