An Example of a Statement by Daniel Haqiqatjou
While I was working on this writing, a brother sent me a post by Daniel Haqiqatjou regarding the Da'wah Najdiyyah, which can serve as a good example of disingenuous argumentation. He claims that the followers of the so-called Wahhabiyyah would exclude from Islam all followers of the four schools of jurisprudence from the outset, even the followers of the Hanbalite school of jurisprudence! As evidence for this claim, he cites the statement of a scholar which states that some people convert from Christianity to Islamic groups that are in reality grave-worshippers – thus they merely go from one false belief to another. From this, Haqiqatjou concludes:
- That the followers of the Wahhabiyyah do not consider any followers of the well-known schools of jurisprudence to be Muslims.
- That they apply this even to the followers of the Hanbalite school of jurisprudence.
- That they consider all followers of any of the schools of jurisprudence to be worse than Jews and Christians.
In actuality, however, in the text cited as evidence:
- The discussion was specifically about grave-worshippers.
- The word Madhhab/school of jurisprudence was not mentioned a single time.
- None of the four schools of jurisprudence mentioned by him was referred to with even a single word.
In fact, this claim contradicts reality in every respect, since individuals such as Malik or ash-Shafi'i are regarded by all representatives and followers of the Da'wah Najdiyyah as great and significant scholars. Moreover, Muhammad ibnu 'Abdil-Wahhab was himself a Hanbalite scholar, and most followers of the Wahhabiyyah count themselves as adherents of the Hanbalite school of jurisprudence! In reality, therefore, the criticism in no way pertains to the legal opinions of various scholars, but rather to fundamental creedal matters, such as the aforementioned worship at graves.