Born in Houston, Texas, Daniel Haqiqatjou is a scholar of Islam. He attended Harvard University where he majored in Physics and minored in Philosophy.
According to his Facebook page, Haqiqatjou completed a Masters degree in Philosophy at Tufts University. Haqiqatjou also studies traditional Islamic sciences part-time. He writes and lectures on contemporary issues surrounding Muslims and Modernity. He is also a contributor to the Muslim Debate Initiative.
On March 29, 2018 Daniel Haqiqatjou shared Ali A. Rizvi’s post and discussing the Islamic ruling pertaining to apostates. The following an excerpt from his post:
…I can concede and agree with secularists that the ideal form of governance is one that maximizes freedom, happiness, etc., as the atheists contend here. But by that definition combined with the Islamic position on what happiness, harm, etc., entail, that ideal form of governance is one that is determined by God’s law, which is the Sharia. In other words, if you anchor happiness and harm in reality, which we know through revelation not the blind musings of random atheistic philosophers, the secular ideal can be used to champion the application of Sharia… How does this relate to capital punishment for apostasy (which is the unanimous position of the scholars of Islam)? Well, insofar as the state is committed to maximizing happiness and minimizing harm, then Islamic governance should institute severe punishments to deter acts of apostasy given that apostasy threatens the happiness in this life and the next of other members of society. In this way, apostasy is not a neutral act. It is deeply, catastrophically harmful. And so, *of course* it should be deterred in severe terms by the state authority (NB: not vigilantism). This is the wisdom of the Law Maker and His Messengerﷺ and the recognition of that wisdom by 1400 years of scholarship across the Islamic schools of thought. It is really quite a simple argument. And you can see that the apostates didn’t have a response.