Response to the Shi’a Daniel Haqiqatjou and His False Accusations Against Me
"O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful". x.com
"O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful". x.com
He even fabricated a title for my post, claiming that I said: “Sayyidna Ali NOT an Accepted Caliph.”
To clarify, I never said this. I consistently affirm that Sayyidna Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was indeed a caliph in his time. What I shared was a quote from a scholar, clearly sourced below the tweet, indicating that the image was taken from Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar.
Daniel edited the tweet to remove the preceding context and omitted the quotation from Fath al-Bari, as well as the translation. This manipulation enabled him to impose a misleading title on my post, aiming to mislead readers intentionally.
x.com
To clarify, I never said this. I consistently affirm that Sayyidna Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was indeed a caliph in his time. What I shared was a quote from a scholar, clearly sourced below the tweet, indicating that the image was taken from Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar.
Daniel edited the tweet to remove the preceding context and omitted the quotation from Fath al-Bari, as well as the translation. This manipulation enabled him to impose a misleading title on my post, aiming to mislead readers intentionally.
x.com
In this tweet, he changed the original text to his fabricated title, "Sayyidna Ali NOT an Accepted Caliph," while the actual text was:
"It depends on what you mean. Ali, may God be pleased with him, was the caliph of his time, but people did not agree on him. However, if you mean the caliphate that all people agree on, then people agreed on Muawiyah.”
The context is very clear here. I explained that Sayyidna Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was the caliph during his time, but not everyone agreed upon his rule. Historically, his caliphate was marked by divisions and internal conflicts. This does not imply that those who came after him were better than him, but simply reflects historical reality. The title chosen by Daniel is nothing but a deliberate fabrication.
x.com
"It depends on what you mean. Ali, may God be pleased with him, was the caliph of his time, but people did not agree on him. However, if you mean the caliphate that all people agree on, then people agreed on Muawiyah.”
The context is very clear here. I explained that Sayyidna Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was the caliph during his time, but not everyone agreed upon his rule. Historically, his caliphate was marked by divisions and internal conflicts. This does not imply that those who came after him were better than him, but simply reflects historical reality. The title chosen by Daniel is nothing but a deliberate fabrication.
x.com
Regarding Sayyidna Ali’s Alleged Disobedience: Sayyidna Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, never disobeyed the Prophet ﷺ, nor did I ever claim otherwise. His stance regarding Abu Bakr’s caliphate is well-known; he pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr after six months, and there was no sin or disobedience in this. Daniel’s accusation that I said otherwise is pure slander.
As you can see, the Shi'a Daniel deleted the tweets that demonstrate this, especially Hadith number 6266, so that the reader would not realize that all my statements come from Sahih al-Bukhari and that I have not presented anything from my own opinion.
x.com
As you can see, the Shi'a Daniel deleted the tweets that demonstrate this, especially Hadith number 6266, so that the reader would not realize that all my statements come from Sahih al-Bukhari and that I have not presented anything from my own opinion.
x.com
Notice here that the Google translation was actually correct, as it translated the word khorouj to "departure," but the deceptive Shi'a left the Arabic word to try to distort the meaning.
It should be clear that I was only quoting another person directly, simply noting “Added by a Facebook participant.”
I have repeatedly clarified that Husayn was not among the Kharijites, and that it is incorrect to label anyone who opposed a ruler as a Kharijite. The true Kharijites are those who accuse others of disbelief, and Husayn (may God be pleased with him) is innocent of that.
x.com
It should be clear that I was only quoting another person directly, simply noting “Added by a Facebook participant.”
I have repeatedly clarified that Husayn was not among the Kharijites, and that it is incorrect to label anyone who opposed a ruler as a Kharijite. The true Kharijites are those who accuse others of disbelief, and Husayn (may God be pleased with him) is innocent of that.
x.com
This distortion further reflects Daniel’s constant deception, where he placed a false title on the tweet that read: "Yazid Did Right to Crush Husayn’s ‘Rebellion’,”
Yet, if you read the translation, you’d see that I never spoke about Husayn at all; instead, I was referring to the rebellion that occurred in Medina, which was entirely different in time and place. Even Ali ibn al-Husayn was in Medina at the time and did not participate in it—nor did any of the Banu Hashim, who actually sided with Yazid, as you can find in the histories of al-Tabari and Ibn Shabbah.
Yet, if you read the translation, you’d see that I never spoke about Husayn at all; instead, I was referring to the rebellion that occurred in Medina, which was entirely different in time and place. Even Ali ibn al-Husayn was in Medina at the time and did not participate in it—nor did any of the Banu Hashim, who actually sided with Yazid, as you can find in the histories of al-Tabari and Ibn Shabbah.
Yazid's caliphate was valid.
Al-Hafiz Abdul Ghani al-Maqdisi mentioned that "Yazid bin Muawiyah was pledged allegiance by sixty companions, including Ibn Umar." Ibn Umar's pledge of allegiance is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari.
These people were witnesses of that era and had a better understanding of it than I do.
Al-Hafiz Abdul Ghani al-Maqdisi mentioned that "Yazid bin Muawiyah was pledged allegiance by sixty companions, including Ibn Umar." Ibn Umar's pledge of allegiance is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari.
These people were witnesses of that era and had a better understanding of it than I do.
The Shi'a claims that Yazid was the killer of Husayn, but this is false.
Imam al-Ghazali stated, "Anyone who claims that Yazid ordered the killing of Husayn (may God be pleased with him) is demonstrating #extreme ignorance."
Imam al-Ghazali stated, "Anyone who claims that Yazid ordered the killing of Husayn (may God be pleased with him) is demonstrating #extreme ignorance."
During the debate, I clarified that this tweet was meant to mock the Shi'a slogans and their polytheistic chants during the bombardment, particularly their invented phrase, "I testify that Ali is the beloved of Allah."
This is evident from the images included in the tweet, which the lying Shi'a deceptively removed to prevent others from understanding the context.
This is evident from the images included in the tweet, which the lying Shi'a deceptively removed to prevent others from understanding the context.
In conclusion, I leave you with these facts that expose how words are manipulated and taken out of context to deceive and distort the meaning. Genuine intellectual dialogue requires honesty and transparency, not the deceit and distortion relied upon by those seeking to "win" an argument at any cost. I pray that God guides us all to the truth, keeps us away from blind fanaticism and discord, and opens our hearts to what is good and right.
{Rather, We dash the truth upon falsehood, and it destroys it, and thereupon it departs. And for you is destruction from that which you describe.}
{Rather, We dash the truth upon falsehood, and it destroys it, and thereupon it departs. And for you is destruction from that which you describe.}
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...