DANIEL HAQIQATJOU is an online personality active on the tube and social media. He provides critiques of materalism, atheism and liberalism. However, the absence of grounding in Islāmic sciences that would have checked his philosophy and sanitized his polemics and kept him within the limits of safety and respectability, has led him to much sin and transgression in the form of blanket takfīr of other Muslims, denigration of Muslim societies, speaking about them in the most evil of ways, and putting the blame for the woes and ills of the ummah upon the rulers and those whom he calls ‘Madkhalis’. He reviles Salafi scholars as ‘bootlickers’ and uses expressions of takfīr with respect to them and Muslim societies in general.
Haqiqatjou has greater compassion and affinity for Christians, wanting to aid them in growing and thriving and as for the Rāfiḍah Shīʿah, their states and proxies, they are more shielded from his tongue than are Sunni Muslim states and societies.
Indeed, much of his language and rhetoric in this regard resembles the rhetoric found in the writings of Sayyid Quṭb towards Muslim societies. His followers, in whom he nurtures denigration and hatred of Muslim societies through his social media activity, provide a large, fertile recruiting ground for ISIS (Daesh). Thus, while he speaks against extremism on the one hand (theoretically and academically speaking), he fosters and nurtures it on the other (practically speaking).
While we acknowledge that Muslim societies are under attack from atheism, liberalism, licentiousness and calls to unity of religions and the ideology of “Abrahamic religions”, all of which must be highlighted and exposed and countered with knowledge and wisdom, Haqiqatjou, exceeding the bounds, oppressively slanders Salafis (so-called ‘Madkhalis’), and accuses them and their scholars of being part of this agenda as agents, as hypocrites, seeking to destroy Islām. This does not appear to be an innocent mistake or transgression, it appears to be deliberate, calculated and purposeful.
The way of the People of Tawḥīd and Sunnah is to address all evils and harms, inclusive of atheism, liberalism and materialism, but they do not base the foundation of their love, affection, loyalty and sympathy merely on the basis of shared traditional values, rather it is based on the foundations of īmān, Tawḥīd and ʿaqidah. With respect to daʿwah, we see that Lūṭ (عليه السلام) addressed immorality (without mention of Tawḥīd), and Shuʿayb (عليه السلام) addressed both the issue of Tawḥīd and unjust trade practices (7:85-), the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) addressed social evils (burying girls alive, greed, materialism) while calling to the foundation of Tawḥīd.
Thus, what we focus on when calling to Allāh depends on the nature of the misguidance and the nature of the people, the nature of the society. Thus, he who says, absolutely, that we call to Tawḥīd alone without addressing evils, is not correct, and he who says that we address the evils first, before people will accept Tawḥīd, he is in error also. Rather, we enter Tawḥīd into the hearts and we warn from evils, while acknowledging affairs of priority therein.
It should be noted that Daniel Haqiqatjou is of an Iranian background whose parents moved to the US. His immediate family members converted to Christianity. There is said to be Bahaʾīsm in his family or relatives and out of this background, Daniel emerged as a Sunni Muslim. However, Daniel tends to show severe animosity towards Sunni Muslim countries while being sympathetic towards Iran and comparitively quiet about Shīʿism and its peril to Islām and Muslims. He considers Shīʿites to be Muslims without really distinguishing between their scholars and common folk. He has also expressed his desire to help Christianity and its numbers to grow. It appears that his loyalty and disloyalty are not centered around the foundation of Tawḥīd itself, the meaning of the kalimah, and the subject matters of Īmān, al-Qadar, the Ṣifāt, love of the Companions and so on, but generally around traditional family values and opposition to liberalism. If he does speaks of those Islāmic topics, it is academic, philosophical and intellectual in nature, stripped of any love, loyalty and affiliation necessitated by them.
Hence, he has greater sympathy, affection and goodwill for Christian societies (on the basis of traditional values) than he does for Sunni Muslim societies which he denigrates and portrays in the most evil manner (despite their Islām and Īmān), while Shīʿism, Shīʿites and their rulers (who have with them explicit shirk and tafkīr of the Companions) are more shielded from his tongue than Sunni Muslim societies and their rulers. Rather, with respect to the latter, his approach is that of the Takfīrī Khārijites, a consequence of which is the provision of fodder for the likes of Daesh and ISIS from among his own followers.
In late 2022, when one of his associates on the tube disassociated from him due to his exaggerations and errors in this field (takfīr upon other than Sharīʿah principles, incitation and agitation), and offered him advice, his intoxication and derangement worsened. He became mentally ill and embarked on a personal vendetta against the so-called ‘Madkhalis’ who are more evil, as it may appear in his rhetoric, than Firʾaun and David Wood.
Over the past 5-6 weeks, following the Zionist atrocities in Gaza in response to Hamas, his derangement went into overdrive, and he used this calamity as a tool with which to intensify his slander and oppression of Salafis even further, thereby cheapening the blood of our Muslim brothers and sisters in Gaza, may Allāh grant them aid and relief against occupation and oppression.
Alongside this evil that has come from Haqiqatjou, he has made some positive contributions (for his followers). For example, speaking often about bootlickers, he has himself laid down exemplary principles for the art and science of bootlicking the heads of kufr. In this article, we explore this matter further and show how the typical ‘Madkhali’ bootlick appears to be nothing more than a failed attempt to imitate the gold-standard kāfir bootlick of Haqiqatjou.
In what follows we first document the bootlick, second, we analyze and explain the bootlick, and out of that, thirdly, we extract the elements and conditions of an authentic bootlick and what separates it from a spurious and imitational one. Fourthly, we deconstruct three fake ‘Madkhali’ bootlicks and explain the ruling upon them based on Haqiqatjouan Bootlick Science. Finally, we make some closing notes and comments to round things off.
As the reader may be aware, David Wood is a Christian and a notorious Islām hater. He is counted from the heads and chiefs of kufr, bent on destroying Islām, making mockery of the Qur’ān, and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). He says vile things about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), his character and his integrity.
In the video below Haqiqatjou responds to a comment made about David Wood in the course of which Haqiqatjou delivers all the essential components of an expertly delivered bootlick.
The note is read out by Haqiqatjou:
David Wood is a shameless psychopath. Inshāʾallah, he gets the help he needs and gets guided.
Transcript of the bootlick, please have a tissue box handy, its quite sad and tear-jerking:
Yeah, I, uh [sigh], I have a really hard time talking about David Wood in that way. I know that he's insulting the prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam), and that's despicable. It's vile. But I just calling him a psychopath. He calls himself a psychopath. Right. He says it about himself.
But the man has had a hard life. I think we have to have some I guess I'm becoming the compassionate imam now. But the poor guy has had a very hard life. He grew up in poverty. It seems like he had certain bad I don't want to violate his privacy. I mean, these are things that he said publicly, so hopefully I'm not violating his privacy.
But he mentions his father, and it seems like there is not a good relationship there. I mentioned his children seem to have some illness. He mentioned that in one of the videos that he put on his channel, and that really affected me. Yeah. So he's had a hard life, and I really do.
Upon this, we say:
Daniel Haqiqatjou is the undisputed master and scholar of the art and science of the bootlick. He is the sage of the era in this field, the carrier of its flag in cyberspace, and knowledge returns back to him as he has corroborated all the principles of this science within this short span of 90 seconds.
This is proven and explained with what follows:
As you wipe away the tears of pity and compassion for David Wood, have a sip of water for that dry throat, and spend a few moments composing yourself, let us break down what must have been an extremely difficult and traumatic 90 second experience for Haqiqatjou, in the course of which he demonstrated the art of the bootlick.
Yeah, I, uh [sigh], I have a really hard time talking about David Wood in that way.
Haqiqatjou sighs and finds it disturbing and somewhat hard to swallow that someone should dare to suggest that Wood is a “shameless psychopath”. Haqiqatjou is having “a really hard time” talking about this openly avowed enemy of Islām, the Qurʾān, and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Its obviously upsetting, but these are the vicissitudes of life, things make you happy, things make you sad. Its interesting and enlightening to know what things upset Haqiqatjou and give him a hard time.
It is evidently the case that David Wood is shameless and he is a psychopath too, and as Haqiqatjou himself explains, that Wood even says it about himself. So how can someone be visibly upset with factual statements? Its like someone saying “The cursed Twelver Shīʿites consider Abū Bakr and ʿUmar (رضي الله عنهما) to be disbelievers and accuse ʿĀʾishah (رضي الله عنها) of an enormity. They are shameless psychopaths”, and you respond by saying, “Yeah, I, uh [sigh], I have a really hard time talking about them in that way… they've had a hard life.” Even then, this Sḥīʿite bootlick example is much less worse than the one being discussed with respect to David Wood. If you can see the repugnance in the Shīʿite bootlick, surely, you can see the kāfir bootlick for what it truly is.
I know that he’s insulting the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam), and that's despicable. It's vile. But I just, you know, calling him a psychopath. He calls himself a psychopath. Right. He says it about himself.
Haqiqatjou’s expertise in this field is immediately displayed—and duly recognised—here we see a fantastic sprinkling of the Irjāʾ of al-Jahm bin Ṣafwān straight into the opening of the bootlick. That is to say: I know that Wood says that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is a liar, imposter, madman, deceiver, pedophile and so on, but come on! I mean calling him a psychopath! That's traumatic for me. Can you not just tame your strong emotions and protective jealousy for the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and show some sympathy and understanding for David Wood instead? And look, I can easily explain his kufr, his psychopathy...
But he, mmhh [sigh] the man has had a hard life.
Haqiqatjou can hardly contain himself with his spontaneous “mmhh”s and sighs and visible signs of disapproval and agitation on his face, and in turn, the observer has to reach out for the tissues to wipe away the tears. Its such a sad story. This poor hate-filled Christian man who reviles and abuses the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and works for the destruction of Islām day and night, a leader therein, he’s had a hard life, I mean why is that so difficult for a ‘Madkhali’ (and others) to grasp? Give the guy a break you harsh extremists!
I think we have to have some, I guess I'm becoming the compassionate imām now.
Haqiqatjou strikes again! A second sprinkling of the Irjāʾ of al-Jahm bin Ṣafwān in literally the same breath, this is clear mastery. Should ‘Madkhalis’ not take notes and learn from the undisputed master?
He starts off his sentence, “I think we have to have some…”, then he changes track. He meant to say we, as in we Muslims, have to have some sympathy and compassion for David Wood, the avowed enemy of Islām. Perhaps realising that he should not use the word “we” and speak for others, he changes track and says: “I guess I’m becoming the compassionate imām now.”
Compassionate towards the heads of disbelief who are determined and resolute for Islām’s destruction. Its a truly formidable bootlick. You are not going to find anything near it.
But the poor guy has had a very hard life. He grew up in poverty. It seems like he had certain bad I don't want to violate his privacy. I mean, these are things that he said publicly, so hopefully I'm not violating his privacy.
The bootlick enters into sophisticated territory now, novices pay attention! We are way beyond 101. You see, he had a hard life and grew up in poverty. Now how many a disbeliever do you know of, from the time of Nūḥ (عليه السلام) till this day of ours who had a hard life, grew up in poverty and ended up being a kāfir, ghalīḍh (stern) in his kufr, waging war against the Prophets and Messengers, and against Islām, the Qurʾān and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and determined to extinguish its light? Exactly! Please, give David Wood a break.
Look at Haqiqatjou’s waraʾ (piety, cautiousness) in relation to David Wood, who is who he is, and his concern for his privacy, I don’t want the man backbitten (by being described as a shameless psychopath), and nor his privacy violated, but you know, “Madkhali bootlickers”, Munafiqin scholars, “Rabbis”, “Zionists” (i.e. Muslims he expels from the fold of Islām), and Muslim societies (“concentration camps doubling up as gay nightclubs”), well… feast! You see, David Wood’s flesh is poisonous, but the flesh of “Rabbis” and “Zionists” cosplaying as Salafi scholars, students or laymen, bon appetit!
But he mentions his father, and it seems like there is not a good relationship there.
The story starts to become even more heartbreaking. A broken relationship with his father as well, how sad. Can we not show any sympathy and compassion for this poor man who was led by all these tragedies in his life to become an enemy to Islām and wager of war for its destruction?
I mean, the poor man’s trauma has been so bad that he’s been forced to cope by posting slanderous, denigrating cartoons and caricatures of the Prophet of Islām (صلى الله عليه وسلم) across his online network, for which you dare to call him a “shameless psychopath”. You see I really do have a hard time with this, and this is me being compassionate now.
I mentioned his children seem to have some illness. He mentioned that in one of the videos that he put on his channel, and that really affected me. Yeah. So he's had a hard life, and I really do…
This is the most tear-jerking part of the bootlick, saved for the end, another masterful Haqiqatjouan stroke of the tongue:
It’s so sad. This poor, enmitous kāfir, Allāh decreed for his children to have some illness, and absolutely through no fault of his own, through no sickness of his own heart, this trauma led him down the path of posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in his videos and using caricatures of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) for his video splash screen images. And that's only the mere cosmetics and decorations of his actual, relentless activities in working to erase the light of Islām. I mean, did not the Pagans argue, as mentioned in the Qurʾān, that if Allāh had so willed, they would not have committed shirk (6:148-), so how can David Wood be blamed and called “shameless” and a “psychopath” simply for being a blameless victim of Allāh’s decree?
“That really affected me. Yeah. So he’s had a hard life, and I really do…”, says Haqiqatjou, and the video ends here, but you can work out what may have been next. As in, “I really do...” feel sorry, have pity and compassion for this enemy of Islām and of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), because he’s had such a hard life.
The astute reader should note another Haqiqatjouan masterstroke in ʿaqidah embedded in his bootlick. The subtleties are amazing. He displays for us the subtleties of the ʿaqidah of the Mushrikiyyah among the Qadariyyah, those who use al-Qadar (creational decree) as an argument against al-Sharʿ (legislation). David Wood is a victim of Allāh’s decree and thus, it really affects me that he should be called a “shameless psychopath” for his kufr and waging of war against Islām and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). If Allāh had so willed and not made David Wood a victim of His decree, then he would not have been accused of shameless psychopathy. So we should all have a really hard time with this type of speech, we need to give this guy a break, his kids have illnesses!
Its amazing that in so few words, Haqiqatjou is able to combine subtleties of ʿaqidah with the uṣūl of the kāfir bootlick.
What we have witnessed above is a bootlick that has the gradation of ṣaḥīḥ (authentic, real, true) in the sense that it is a genuine, verified bootlick, meeting all the conditions of authenticity. The kufr of David Wood is evident and is famous, mutawātir, undisputed. Within the bootlick, Haqiqatjou incorporates evidence for this kufr (insulting the Prophet) and having set the scene perfectly, he proceeds to execute the bootlick with finesse and grace. This is a 100%, genuine authentic bootlick of an open, avowed kāfir, enemy of Islām, about which no two Muslims can differ.
Further, it is self-validated and self-authenticated. No one can dispute it. Haqiqatjou made absolutely sure that no one could question this bootlick and he crafted it in such a way that no ‘Madkhali’ could ever cosplay it.
The evil ‘Madkhalis’ have been accused of bootlicking and it appears they have tried, but failed, to mimic and reproduce the Haqiqatjouan masterpiece. We will now provide evidence as to why the ‘Madkhali’ bootlick is fabricated (mawḍūʿ), having no basis, or weak and rejected (ḍāʿīf, munkar).
01 The Haqiqatjouan bootlick is a model of authenticity. As has preceded, it has the primary element included, the affirmation and corroboration of kufr. In the example masterpiece bootlick above, Haqiqatjou includes his evidence, prior to the execution of the bootlick. This is acknowledgement and corroboration of David Wood’s clear, undisputed kufr, through a clear cited example, that he insults the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).
In contrast, there is no such thing or even an acknowledgement of such a thing in the typical ‘Madkhali’ bootlick. That is to say, ‘Madkhalis’ never seem to provide any evidence of kufr in their bootlicking of the rulers, proving that they (the ‘Madkhalis’ ) are imposters, and that their bootlicks are not genuine and only have imitational properties.
02 The Haqiqatjouan bootlick incorporates rejection (inkār) of the kufr within the bootlick itself. In the masterpiece example above, we have Haqiqatjou saying, “and that's despicable. It's vile.” That is to say, before the tongue is prepared to execute the bootlick, to ensure that it is an authentic bootlick, one must not only cite the component of kufr, but verbally express one's rejection of it, before proceeding to make the compassionate bootlick. Its an added stamp of authenticity.
In contrast, the ‘Madkhali’ bootlickers do not have this added stamp of authenticity in their imitational bootlicks. This is obvious as this is not possible for them, given the first distinction above that separates the Haqiqatjouan original from the ‘Madkhalī’ counterfeit.
03 Imparting ʿaqīdah lessons during the bootlick. From the distinguishing features of the Haqiqatjouan bootlick is the slick, indirect impartation of points of ʿaqidah. In this case it is the Irjāʾ of al-Jahm bin Ṣafwān.
That is to say, you corroborate the kufr (in this case of David Wood), you illustrate it, and you acknowledge that it is despicable, but then you rush to provide excuses for the kāfir, out of grief and agitation that he should be described with negative words, such as “psychopath”, while the same kāfir (David Wood) describes your Prophet as a pedophile and other equally vile denigrations and slanders. Aqidah 101! The fruits of drowning yourself in philosophy, and dry, fruitless, heart-hardening debates with Islam-haters whose hearts have been sealed upon kufr? You acquire a speciality in ʿaqīdah, the ʿaqīdah of Ahl al-Bidaʿ wal-Ḍalāl, and you become a magnet, attracting its choicest elements.
04 An element or condition (sharṭ) if you like, of the Haqiqatjouan model bootlick of perfection is the sigh of grief and sadness, the presence of the “mmhh”s and “aahh”s along with visible signs of displeasure on the face. This is a sure sign of authenticity, that the bootlick is genuine and emanates from the deepest recesses of the heart.
05 Another element or condition (sharṭ) of authenticity separating the ṣaḥīḥ from the mawḍūʿ and munkar among the bootlicks is the explicit mention of compassion. That is, expressing one's own compassion and calling for compassion for the heads and chiefs of kufr about whom no two Muslims differ, that they are devoted enemies of Islām.
06 Another element or condition (sharṭ) of authenticity separating the ṣaḥīḥ from the mawḍūʿ and munkar among the bootlicks is the citation of individual pieces of evidence to justify and support the bootlick. The more, the better. In Haqiqatjou's model bootlick, we have numerous evidences justifying the compassion, the sadness, the broken voice, the "mmhh"s and the "aahh"s that comprise the bootlick.
Haqiqatjou charitably provided four solid pieces of evidence for the bootlick:
07 Another element of the bootlick is the seal. This we find in Haqiqatjou’s graceful completion of the bootlick wherein he said: “…that really affected me.” This is a seal of the evidences provided, and it adds a final layer of authenticity and genuineness.
The above might be a bit difficult to grasp for some, given its theoretical nature, so in what follows we want to spell things out a bit more clearly for the benefit of the reader.
That is to say, in effect:
You are calling the head and chief of kufr, enemy of Islām, the Qurʾān and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), David Wood a shameless psychopath?! I have a hard time with this, sigh, sigh, I have a hard time talking about him in this way, grief. I acknowledge his kufr, I acknowledge its despicable, but come on, the man has had a hard life. Compassion please. Poverty, broken home, sick children. This really affects me so much, I can’t bear to hear these words “shameless psychopath”, we can’t treat him like that.
We can compare this authentic bootlick, having all its elements and conditions, as well as its perfections and decorations with:
The sinful, tyrannical ruler, calling him a disbeliever upon other than Sharīʿah principles, and making generalised takfīr, and calling for open rejection to be shown. I have a hard time with this, I do not acknowlege the accusation of kufr unless clear evidence is brought that is clear and unambiguous, confirmed by scholars of noteworthy standing, not suffering from the affectations of the Khārijites and Rāfiḍah. And while I do not excuse the sin and tyranny of the ruler, and nor seek to justify it in any way, rather I reject it and hate it in my heart, I do not want to hear any of this incitation because I fear that the ruler, if he hears this type of speech—being called a tyrant, oppressor, kāfir, munāfiq, enemy of Islām and so on— will double-up on his tyranny, be more repressive, and harm the people more, with the potential for civil strife, and harm to the nation as a whole, creating schisms and instability, and bringing even greater evil. So while we warn against sins, disobedience, liberalism and so on, we can’t take this course of action out of wisdom and foresight, not compromise and acceptance (of evil). It hurts us to see Muslim societies suffer the same fate as the people of Iraq, Syria and Libya. I have a really hard time with this.
Hopefully, the reader should be able to discern the inauthenticity of this counterfeit bootlick. Evil ‘Madkhalis’, trying to peddle their imitational bootlicks as genuine and stealthily putting the brand label of “Haqiqatjou” upon them! Liars!
Exercise: Please apply the knowledge you have gained and explain why the above bootlick cannot be considered authentic. You must provide at least two reasons or ways in which it does not meet the Haqiqatjouan stamp of authenticity.
Note, in case there is any misunderstanding: The texts below contain the position of Ahl al-Sunnah in this issue of advising and correcting the rulers, and they are obviously being mentioned here with a particular context, with intended irony and sarcasm directed to the misguided, erroneous position of Haqiqatjou and his likes, who accuse Salafis of being ‘bootlickers’ because they are guided by these texts.
The ‘Madkhalis’ have an arsenal of counterfeit bootlicks which they present to the people, and in what follows we want to show clearly how they fall foul of Haqiqatjouan Bootlick Science, as illustrated above. This will train and hone the reader’s ability to separate the sound from the spurious bootlick.
01 From their attempted, imitational bootlicks is the ḥadīth of ʿIyād bin Ghunm (رضي الله عنه) in which the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: 
Whoever wishes to advise the ruler in an affair, let him not do it openly, but let him take him by his hand, be in seclusion with him [and then give him advice]. So if he accepts, then so, and if not, then he has fulfilled [the duty] that was upon him towards him [the ruler].
This is not an authentic Haqiqatjouan bootlick.
First the ‘Madkhalis’ cannot show anything in this ḥadīth that relates to a kāfir, enemy of Islām, like David Wood. So it fails from the outset. Second, there is nothing in the ḥadīth in which the person giving the advice is advised to justify and explain away the error or issue in which advice is to be offered to the ruler. Rather, all it says is to give the advice of correction in the issue in private. Thirdly, there is nothing in the ḥadīth that requests sympathy and justification for the error for which private advice was commended.
Sorry, ‘Madkhalis’! Take your fake bootlick elsewhere, Daniel and his followers, the specialists in this field (أهل الإختصاص), are not buying it.
Bootlick ruling: Ḍāʿīf
02 Also from the attempted, imitational bootlicks of the ‘Madkhalis’ is what is reported by Abū Wāʾil who said that it was said to Usāmah bin Zayd (رضي الله عنه), “Will you not come to ʿUthmān and advise him?” And he replied:
You wish that I do not advise him except in your presence [so you can hear]. Rather, I will speak to him privately, without opening a door which I am the first to open.
Ibn Ḥajar (رحمه الله) explains:
Al-Muhallab said: “That they wanted Usāmah to speak to ʿUthmān about his stepbrother, al-Walīd bin ʿUqbah, whom he had given authority, and the smell of nabiḍh (intoxication) could often be detected from him. So he said: ‘I have already advised him privately, without opening a door,’ meaning the door of open rejection against the rulers.” And [Qāḍī] ʿIyāḍ said: “The intent of Usāmah was that he did not want to open the door of open rejection against the ruler due to the fear of its [evil] outcome. Rather, that he should be gentle, and advise him privately, as that is more likely to be accepted.”
This is not an authentic Haqiqatjouan bootlick.
A very crafty attempt from the ‘Madkhalis’. First, all that exists in this report is that Usāmah bin Zayd (رضي الله عنه) refused to make open rejection of the evil by reprimanding ʿUthmān (رضي الله عنه) in public for having someone in a position of authority who drinks khamr, and it being known among the people. Usāmah refused to do it openly. Second, where is the kāfir, enemy of Islām in this narration, the likes of David Wood, whose boots are to be licked upon Haqiqatjouan manhaj? There is none! ‘Madkhali’ liars! Thirdly, where is there in this report anything of showing compassion, justification and excuses for the evils at hand (even though they do not reach David Wood's kufr), namely, the drinking of khamr, and the ruler ʿUthmān (رضي الله عنه) having put such a one in a position of authority. There is none, unlike the compassion shown for David Wood. ‘Madkhali’ liars!
This is a fake bootlick, it is devoid of elements and conditions and the specialists of the field (أهل الإختصاص), led by Daniel, squarely reject it. Your pockets are empty, ‘Madkhalis’!
Bootlick ruling: Munkar
03 Also from the attempted, imitational bootlicks of the ‘Madkhalis’ is what is reported from Saʿīd bin Jumhān, that he:
...came to ʿAbd Allāh bin Abī Awfā (رضي الله عنه) in Baṣrah who asked him who he was. He told him that he is Saʿīd bin Jumhān. He then asked him what happened to his father. He, Saʿīd said: “The Azāriqah [an extreme sect of the Khārijites like modern-day ISIS] killed him.” So he [ʿAbd Allāh] said: “May Allāh curse the Azāriqah, may Allāh curse the Azāriqah, the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) narrated to us that they are the Dogs of Hellfire.”
He [Saʿīd] said: “But the ruler oppresses the people and does things to them.” So he [ʿAbd Allāh] took his hand, holding it very firmly, and told him: “Woe be to you O son of Jumhān! You must stick to the main body, you must stick to the main body. If the ruler listens to you, then come to his house and tell him what you know. If he accepts it, then so, if not then leave him for you are not more knowledgeable of him [of his affair].”
This is not an authentic Haqiqatjouan bootlick, but it is a sophisticated one, ‘Madkhalis’ are being tricky.
First of all, the context in this report is of extremist Takfīrī Khārijites like Daesh who revolted against the ruler. The father of Saʿīd was killed by them, and when ʿAbd Allāh (رضي الله عنه) cursed them and related the Prophetic judgement that they are “Dogs of Hellfire”, Saʿīd made mention of the oppression and tyranny of the ruler. So ʿAbd Allāh told him off, advised him to stay with the main body, and if he has any advice or anything to say, to say it privately to the ruler.
Secondly, from here, we can be in two sets of shoes. If we are in the shoes of the Azāriqah (modern-day Daeshites), then to them, the ruler is a kāfir. But the Azāriqah are not bootlicking obviously, rather, they are revolting and seeking to kill the ruler and whoever does not join them in revolting against the ruler. Hence, ‘Madkhali’ istidlāl (deduction of evidence) would fail. It's not a bootlick scenario.
And if we are in the shoes of ʿAbd Allāh, the Companion, then he does not hold the ruler to be a kāfir, and he advised Saʿid with the Sunnah, but did not bring any excuses or sympathies for the ruler’s deeds of oppression. Given this, where is the kāfir, enemy of Islām, of the Qurʾān and of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) such as David Wood in this narration whose boots are to be licked, whether we are in the shoes of the Azāriqah or the shoes of ʿAbd Allāh bin Abi Awfā, the Companion? There is none! Darn ‘Madkhalis’! Twisting the texts to suit their desires!
Thirdly, where can we find the Haqiqatjouan compassion and sympathy and listing of excuses (that resembles the compassion for David Wood, the resolute kāfir) on behalf of ʿAbd Allāh (رضي الله عنه) for the oppression of the ruler alluded to by Saʿīd bin Jumhān? There isn’t any, he never made any excuses. Rather, he just told Saʿīd to advise him in private, without showing compassion for the ruler or listing excuses to make feel Saʿīd sorry for the ruler.
It is clear that despite its sophistication, this attempted ‘Madkhali’ bootlick is fake and imitational, and is not an authentic Haqiqatjouan bootlick. No head of kufr with explicit mention of his kufr for which a bootlick is constructed, comprising compassion and lines of evidence. Sorry ‘Madkhalis’, nice try, but try again! The specialist in the field (صاحب الفن), Daniel Haqiqatjou, rejects this attempted bootlick as it does not match his gold-standard.
Bootlick ruling: Ḍāʿīf jiddan.
You should know that this is the best of what is found with the ‘Madkhalis’ in trying to imitate the gold-standard of all bootlicks, the Haqiqatjouan bootlick of a head among the heads of enmitous, scathing kufr, in this case David Wood.
Note, to avoid misunderstanding and to emphasise what is happening in the above section: It is to make the point that by all intents and purposes Haqiqatjou is the true bootlicker of actual kuffār, whose kufr no two Muslims differ over. And while Haqiqatjou accuses Salafis of being bootlickers because they guide themselves with the guidance of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and his Companions in these texts, he has absolutely no basis whatsoever for his slanders, because what is in these texts of guidance—whose implementation Haqiqatjou considers to be bootlicking—does not come anywhere close (in the mind and understanding of Haqiqatjou himself) to what he himself has done of the ultimate, gold-standard bootlick of the enmitous kāfir, David Wood.
From what has preceded, the concerned reader should immediately recognize the ‘Madkhali’ peril against the sanctity, purity and authenticy of the ṣaḥīḥ bootlick. These evil ‘Madkhalis’ are making faulty interpretations of Prophetic texts in order to cosplay the ṣaḥīḥ bootlick. We need be on guard and relently expose them at every opportunity, and get them scurrying and on their way. Let’s call it the ‘Madkhali Holocaust’ for good measure!
Having reached this far, you should have certainly got the message, and the realities should be apparent. We can finish with some pertinent notes and comments.
01 Over the past years, Haqiqatjou—because he is an ignoramus and has no initial grounding in basic Islamic creed through the books of the Salaf, his nurturing upon soulless philosophy, dry, heart-hardening critiques of materialism and atheism (see note below), and fruitless egotistical debating with Islam-haters whose hearts have been sealed upon kufr—has transgressed the limits, and manifested signs of illness. From them is his intoxication with anti-‘Madkhali’ rhetoric.
Note: This is not to say in any way that materialism, liberalism are not to be refuted, no one is saying that. Rather, what is being said here is that if one is not, prior to embarking upon that, nurtured with sound Islamic knowledge, in particular, numerous areas of creed, a person will be absent a protective anchor and hinge, and be prone to transgressing limits. This is what has happened to Haqiqatjou, he wandered beyond the boundaries and started blaming ‘Madkhalis’ for what are simply Allāh’s rules and laws within His creation, which he is unable to make sense of. But this is a subject for another article.
Many like him have passed during the past three decades and they all rose, gained a bit of fame and notoriety for a while and then fell into obscurity, because they failed to realise that they are not fighting ‘Madkhalis’, but truths from which they blinded themselves due to ignorance and oppression.
02 Over the past year, Haqiqatjou’s mental problems increased after one of his youtuber associates openly disassociated from him in October 2022. Grieved by the potential effect of this on his status, brand and readership, Haqiqatjou pursued a vendetta in which he repeatedly violated the standards of honesty, academic integrity and knowingly drew upon falsehoods and slanders to vilify the so-called ‘Madkhalis’, a label into which he, out of compound ignorance, throws many disparate categories of people. Haqiqatjou quickly developed the trait of inventing his own reality, and then believing it, knowing it to be false.
03 From the most laughable of affairs is that Haqiqatjou in his claims and attacks against so-called ‘Madkhalis’ sought refuge in Western Orientalists—the most-ignorant and blinded of people with respect to realities—and whose aim is to perpetuate confusion about Salafiyyah in particular, and Islām in general. His approach in this is similar to Yasir Qadhi who drunk the Orientalist kool-aid while in the corridors of Yale.
04 Haqiqatjou, in an ad-hoc manner, tries to find whatever he can to vent his anger, frustration, resentment and unhealthy hatred of those whom he calls ‘Madkhalis’. So we can expect that as he continues in his quest against ‘Madkhalis’ he will be exploring and regurgitating what we are already familiar with from the last three decades.
05 During the past few years, and more so in the last year, during his mental intoxication and illness, he has frequently used the word ‘bootlicker’ to denigrate those who uphold and venerate the Sunnah. He presents to his audience of Haqiqatjouites the idea that ‘Madkhalis’ are enemies of Islam and hypocrites because they are agents of the rulers who are agents of the Zionists. This is Surūrism 2.0 and Quṭbism 2.0, from the 1990s, regurgitated for young audiences who do not know any better. In fact, Haqiqatjou has explicit statements of blanket takfir upon the way of the Khārijites.
06 What the Salafis are upon with respect to the rulers is moderation in between the way of the Murji’āh, Khawārij and Rāfiḍah.
Thus, they prohibit the evil and show rejection against sins and disobedience that take place in society, fearing that if they do not do so, Allāh’s punishment will engulf all of society. They see sins as harmful and destructive to a society and not as the Murjiʾah say, that actions are not from īmān and sins do not harm or diminish it.
However, in doing so, they follow the Sunnah and not the way of the Khārijites. So they prohibit and warn from the evil, and if there are sins, errors and tyranny from the ruler, they do not make open criticism and incite the people against the ruler. This is not out of sympathy and compassion for him and his errors (unlike Haqiqatjou’s tear-jerking compassion and sympathy for a head among the heads of kufr), but out of concern for where these affairs can lead to, as history has frequently borne witness to this. Further, enemies are often lying in wait, behind these affairs with hidden hands.
And at the same time, they are not upon the way of the Rāfiḍah in considering the Muslim rulers to be infallible, and considering their ijtihāds and policies as being directed by Allāh Himself. Rather, they are men and can be right and wrong, and they are prone to sin, disobedience, error and transgression like everyone else.
And this is well-known to all people, this has been written about during the past three decades by the Salafi scholars, following the Ikhwānī penetration of the Salafi daʿwah by the Quṭbiyyah Surūriyyah, which paved the way for the appearance of ISIS (Daesh).
07 Haqiqatjou, because of his ignorance, does not know that within his rhetoric he carries the poison of the Iblīsiyyah among the Qadarites, those who erred in the matter of Qadar. That is to say—even though he does not verbalise it—the tongue of his disposition effectively asserts a contradiction between al-Qadar (Decree) and al-Sharʿ (legislation) in that Allāh (عز وجل) has decreed for there to be tyrannical rulers who do not care for the interests of their subjects and have with them sin, or accommodation of sin, so Allāh decreed all of this to happen in creational decree, yet, He legislates at the same time, that they be obeyed, listened to, and not openly criticised and incited against.
Haqiqatjou has such a hard time with this, and he sees that rulers should be openly condemned (for sin and tyranny), deeming this to be a better legislation than that which Allāh revealed upon His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and which the Companions (رضي الله عنهم) acted upon. In doing so, he places reason ahead of revelation, and reviles the wisdom of Allāh in His creation and His command.
This group is called the “Iblīsiyyah” because Iblīs is the spokesman for this revilement of al-Qadar and al-Sharʿ. When he was commanded to prostrate to Ādam in obedience to Allāh, he argued back saying, “I am better than him” (38:76-), because of the false assumption that since he was made of fire, and Ādam of clay, he must be superior. Thus, he saw a contradiction between the creation and the command in that Allāh created Ādam inferior (upon his presumption) and then commanded the superior Iblīs to prostrate to the inferior Ādam. A contradiction.
The likes of Haqiqatjou, due to their ignorance, do not see that they carry this and many other poisons that are verbalised with the tongue of speech, or exposed through the tongue of disposition. Why did Allāh decree the placement of such evil and sinful rulers, and then legislate what defies that. Why O why, did Allāh legislate this behaviour towards the rulers, but harshness and severity against those who speak out and revolt against them. This is a non-verbalised revilement of Allāh’s wisdom in His creation and command, and non-acceptance of His legislative judgement. If this was not the case, Haqiqatjou would not be slandering Salafis by calling them ‘bootlickers’. See Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) explain a creational and legislative reality that is disliked and resented by the likes of Haqiqatjou.
08 Repeating what we said to Mohammad Hijāb in 2019, Allāh (سبحانه وتعالى) said:
And the recompense for an evil is an evil of its like... (42:40-).
Al-Baghawī, Ibn al-Jawzī and others in their tafsīr commentaries related that Mujāhid and al-Suddī said: “It is the response to what is repugnant. When he says to him a word, then he responds to it with its like, without transgressing.”
And also from them: “When he says to you: ‘May Allāh disgrace you’, you say: ‘May Allāh disgrace you’. And when he reviles you, then you revile him back but without transgressing.”
The same is related from Sufyān al-Thawrī.
Upon this, Haqiqatjou has been trying to denigrate and humiliate those whom he calls ‘bootlickers’ because they hold to the Qurʾān, the Sunnah and the way of the Salaf in these affairs.
He slanders Salafis by depicting them as having their tongues rolled out, licking the boots of sinful, errant or unjust rulers of the Muslims, trying to portray the most horrendous image he possibly can to his audience, making them the scapegoats for all the woes and ills of the ummah.
However, he has exposed himself and laid to waste the entire basis of his diatribes against the so-called ‘Madkhalis’ through his own self-humiliation in just 90 seconds flat.
How much more obvious and blatant could Daniel Haqiqatjou have made it when he has shown to the whole world that he is more than happy to give David Wood a nice bootlick of compassion and sympathy for his very hard life and troubled relationships!
For history and posterity, Haqiqatjou will be written down as the kāfir bootlicker in just recompense for his oppressive, hate-filled slander of those whom he calls ruler bootlickers.
The worthy thing to note is that this is actually true. Meaning, its not even a lie, by application of his own standards, those by which he slanders and denigrates others, he is actually a kāfir bootlicker—as in, one who bootlicks kāfirs, such as David Wood—by his very own standards.
If refusing to incite against the ruler with open rejection that is devoid of wisdom and counterproductive, while one holds that the ruler is only sinful not a kāfir, is ‘bootlicking’ the ruler within the milieu of Haqiqatjou, then most certainly, showing compassion, defence, and protective jealousy for a kāfir, avowed enemy of Islām, resolute upon its destruction and extingishuing of its light, is most certainly ‘bootlicking’ a kāfir. How can you deny the daylight sun?
The reality mentioned in the verse above, and its enactment as found in the speech of Mujāhid, al-Suddī, al-Thawrī and others, has been actualised, wal-ḥamdulillāh.
09 Finally, to those mesmerised by Haqiqatjou, intoxicated with his intoxication, this affair could not be any more clearer than to slap you out of your oblivion. Let us spell it out, in case you forget to park that hawā in the back seat as you went through all of the above:
How come Haqiqatjou can have such protective jealousy, be visibly agitated for the sake of an enmitous, hate-filled kāfir—who is avowed to destroy Islām, one who denigrates Allāh’s speech, the Qurʾān, denigrates His Messenger, Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم)—and dislike that this kāfir be called “shameless” and/or a “psychopath”—with the kufr of this man, his enmity and his bid to destroy Islām, not in dispute by any two Muslims, rather, not in dispute even by any two Rāfiḍīs—yet he can find absolutely nothing compassionate to say about those Muslims (whether rulers or the ruled, scholars, students or laymen) whom he oppressively expels from the fold of Islām with blanket judgements of takfīr, while it pains him to mention anything good about them? This is from the greatest of contradictions, and it invalidates the entire basis of his diatribes, rants and cheap digs at Salafis.
10 In short, Haqiqatjou violates the principle of al-Walā wal-Barāʾ for the foundations of Īmān and has been blinded by his critique of liberalism from not seeing the errors he has fallen into. He can make excuses for the chiefs and heads of kufr in the West such as David Wood (because they are Christian, with Christian values that go against liberalism), but he cannot show the same compassion, supplication (for rectification) and goodwill towards Muslim rulers, scholars and societies, upon whom he passes judgements of blanket takfīr, based upon his ignorance of the foundations of Islāmic creed and methodology and against whom he incites hatred and abuse.
This thing stinks of Quṭbism 2.0 and Qaʿdī Khārijism. Be in no doubt, those falling for this rhetoric and this ideological nurturing of Haqiqatjou are being set up, in terms of mindset, to become footsoldiers for groups like ISIS (Daesh) in the future. Refuting extremism with one hand and promoting it with the other, just shows the confusion and contradiction of this man.
We ask Allāh to guide him and his likes from his hawā that has engulfed them and led them to this oppression and blatant contradition, āmīn.