Islamic apologist Daniel Haqiqatjou inadvertently reveals centuries-long Islamic acceptance of sex with young boys

On Twitter, a user by the name of Messianic Apostate posted a thread about how a form of homosexuality, specifically homosexual hebephilia, was not only tolerated, but widely accepted and practiced in Muslim civilization for over a thousand years. Hebephilia is when an adult has a sexual preference for pubescent children in early adolescence, between ages 11 and 14. Messianic Apostate’s source was a scientific study that Islamic preacher Daniel Haqiqatjou (who has been featured in articles at Jihad Watch before) had been misusing to defend child marriage. Little did Haqiqatjou know that he shot himself in the foot by citing a study that not only defends a form of homosexuality, but reveals how rampant it was in Islamic history. Haqiqatjou used this study in a recent debate with Christian apologist and YouTuber InspiringPhilosophy, also known as Michael Jones, “Is Child Marriage Acceptable? Islam vs Christianity.” Haqiqatjou’s arguments for child marriage were absolutely insane.

Here is a paraphrase of Messianic Apostate’s thread:

Is Islam a solution to Western degeneracy, as Muslims such as Daniel Haqiqatjou claim, or are they just playing a con game? A thread on how homosexual hebephilia was widespread in Islamic civilization:

In his debates, Haqiqatjou has been using a scientific paper by Bruce Rind as his go-to source whenever the subject of child marriage, or “minor marriage” as Daniel prefers to say, is brought up. The abstract of the paper is available here.

In the recent debate between Haqiqatjou and InspiringPhilosophy, Haqiqatjou got exposed for misusing Rind’s paper to sell the idea that child marriage isn’t harmful to girls (or at least pubescent girls, which is what Bruce Rind was considering).

As InspiringPhilosophy points out, Bruce Rind’s paper doesn’t just focus on heterosexual hebephilia. Rind’s paper also focuses on homosexual hebephilia, and even defends it for the same reasons he defends heterosexual hebephilia!

In fact, not only does Rind defend it, but he also has an entire table about how homosexual hebephilia was widespread and accepted through so many cultures and civilizations, which not only goes on for four pages but even includes Islamic civilizations (page 15)!

Notice how homosexual hebephilia is not only described as “highly romanticised” in Albania under Ottoman rule, but was noticed by visitors, who said that Muslim men and Muslim boys aged 12-17 “frequently cultivated passionate, enthusiastic erotic relations” with each other…

Rind also mentions that Muslims in Albania had “boy-brides,” a practice that spread to others… Does this mean that Muslims endorsed gay marriage, or at least some form of it, long before the Western world did? Haqiqatjou and his fanboys sure have a lot of explaining to do.

Granted, Rind does also say that this was also practiced by Albanian Christians, but he implicitly blames this on the Muslims in Albania (who were the majority population) by saying that it spread it to the Albanian Christians, which speaks volumes about how widespread it was.

Homosexual hebephilic attractions were also “pervasive” in Islamic societies from the eighth to nineteenth centuries, and “were seen as just as normal as heterosexual ones.” Rind notes “staggering amounts of love poetry show an obsession with boyish beauty, seen as comparable to women’s.”

Homosexual hebephilic attractions and love poetry were literally a norm in Islamic societies for over 1,000 years. What embarrassing levels of degeneracy for Muslims! What’s worse is that this only ended in the 19th century due to “Western abhorrence and efforts to modernize.”

Rind also notes that for Islamic societies from the eighth to nineteenth centuries, there was “particularly extensive documentation” that showed “men’s attraction to boys was considered as natural to their attraction to women” in these Islamic societies.

Rind states that “it was widely taken for granted” that “beardless youths posed a temptation to adult men as a whole, and not merely to a small minority of deviants,” which again emphasizes that homosexual hebephilic attractions were very widespread in Islamic societies.

It gets even worse! Rind also cites J.T. Monroe, who quotes a 12th century jurist who says ‘‘He who claims that he experiences no desire when looking at beautiful boys or youth is a liar, and if we could believe him, he would be an animal, not a human being.’’

What’s also worth mentioning is that when you check Bruce Rind’s citation of J.T. Monroe in the references (of which there are hundreds), you can see that Monroe contributed to a book entitled Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature. Monroe’s contribution has a hilarious title: “The striptease that was blamed on Abu Bakr’s naughty son: Was father being shamed, or was the poet having fun?”

On page 20, Bruce Rind once again notes that homosexual hebephilic attractions, which were expressed through “boy brides” in Albania and “love poetry” in North Africa, Western and Central Asia (as mentioned on page 15), continued for a thousand years.

Bruce Rind once again notes that the practice of homosexual hebephilia in Muslim societies and other non-Western societies got abolished because of Western influence, such as colonial rule or internal pressures to reform by their own leaders to please the West.

What’s also worth mentioning is that when homosexual hebophillia was widespread in societies such as Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Renaissance Florence, guess which group of people ended this degenerate practice, while Muslims indulged in it with no shame? Christians!

The fact that such rampant levels of degeneracy occurred throughout Islamic history does not surprise me, because there still seem to be traces of this in the Muslim world. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, it’s known as “bacha bazi,” and there is plenty of documentation of this.

Keep in mind that I’m using the same scientific paper that Haqiqatjou has been citing to defend child marriage. He’s been using it as a smoking gun whenever child marriage gets brought up in his debates, but the paper defends heterosexual and homosexual hebephilia.

This raises numerous questions: Did Haqiqatjou even read the entire paper that he cited, or did he just read the abstract? How many of the sources that he cites does he actually read thoroughly?

How do Muslims explain the fact that for a thousand years, their own civilizations had a rampant homosexual practice that was not just tolerated, but widely accepted, despite the fact that Islam, like Christianity, regards homosexuality as a sin? Why did it take external influence from the West to end such a practice?

Why weren’t Muslim rulers and scholars able to end this practice themselves when Christians ended it in Greece, Rome and Renaissance Florence? Can you honestly even condemn such a practice when so many of your ancestors didn’t for centuries?

I am open to hearing answers. The only answer I can think of is that Muslims in the past didn’t consider this practice as sexual, and that it wasn’t supposed to be sexual, but this is incoherent and desperate.

Anyway, I want to credit InspiringPhilosophy for being the first one to bring this to people’s attention, and also to credit Haqiqatjou for giving us such a goldmine. If it wasn’t for them, this information would still be buried in obscurity.

In conclusion, I’ll end this by saying that Haqiqatjou and his colleagues and followers are playing a con game with people when they try to sell Islam as a solution to Western degeneracy. Whether it be out of ignorance, deception of stupidity, that remains to be seen.

This thread is important to read because in recent times, Muslims have been taking advantage of the ever-increasing degeneracy within the Western world by trying to sell the idea that Sharia is a solution to this degeneracy. But this is nothing more than a diabolical con game. Many Westerners have been deceived by this ploy, not realizing that Muslims are playing a con game with them, because there’s also degeneracy in traditional Muslim civilization and the modern Muslim world to this day. Trading one form of degeneracy for another is akin to trading one poison for another poison.

Daniel Haqiqatjou was defeated in the debate and has been doing nothing but damage control since his defeat.