Tawhidi recently released a Times of Israel article titled “I was once an extremist and an anti-Semite. Do you know my story?” in which he recounts the details of his alleged de-radicalization. Which story is he referring to? The one in his article, the one he told Dave Rubin, the one he told his Twitter followers, or the one he’ll tell his next audience? He can’t consistently recount the details of his alleged de-radicalization because it never happened.
Tawhidi has always had a penchant for dishonest social media behavior. His antics have gotten to the point that taking screenshots of Tawhidi’s every tweet is critical. I began snapping screenshots when Tawhidi was having a suspicious conversation with “Laila,” who was questioning Tawhidi for “taking a swing” at @ShaykAzhar. While I snapped the screenshot because it was obvious by Tawhidi’s tone that he was talking to himself, I was flabbergasted when “Laila” suddenly changed her name to “Sarah.”
It got even weirder when “Sarah” thanked Tawhidi for deradicalizing “her” two brothers, and Tawhidi called “her” by name and told “her” it was good to see “her” around.
I began sharing screenshots with Twitter users who were interacting with “Sarah” (Tawhidi) as if “she” was a real woman, and in true Tawhidi fashion, “Sarah” tagged Tawhidi, evoked the help of the same user Tawhidi has relied on to convince people I am Zuhdi Jasser with a fake female account, and BLOCKED ME!
But the weirdness didn’t stop here… Laila/Sarah (Tawhidi) underwent another name change, and this time “she” (Tawhidi) changed “her” profile picture and Twitter handle as well. Meet Loran Mumtazi… in the midst of creating fake female accounts and trying to keep their names straight, Tawhidi forgot to delete his tweet to “Sarah.”
Laila/Sarah/Loran began deleting “her” tweets, as did Tawhidi, right before Laila/Sarah/Loran became Sonam Hani. “She” eventually deleted “her” account, and nobody has heard from “Sarah’s” brothers.
In June of 2017, Imam Tawhidi boastfully indicated that after the Nice Attack, he met with the Ambassador to France “on behalf of the Grand Ayatollah Sayid Sadiq Shirazi and Adelaide’s Muslim Community.” After reports began surfacing that Tawhidi was acting in the interest of Shirazi, Tawhidi altered his website. Don’t be confused, as he didn’t alter his ideology and condemn Shirazi for condoning child marriage (he still refuses to do that), rather he used the backspace button on his keyboard. It’s deceptive, it’s dishonest, but apparently, people are falling for it.
Tawhidi is so inconsistent that he is struggling not to contradict himself. Some of his contradictions are not so blatantly obvious, while others should raise a red flag in anyone with a pulse. If you follow Tawhidi closely, you are likely aware of the ongoing debacle with his previous Twitter account, @BrotherTawhidi. When Zuhdi Jasser quoted tweets from the account in his Asia Times editorial, Imam Tawhidi issued a FaceBook video where he publicly denies the tweets. In this response to Zuhdi Jasser, Tawhidi refutes Jasser’s accusation of sectarianism by citing his affiiliation with the Shirazi jurisdiction. In this video response (beginning at 9 min 9 seconds), Tawhidi explictly states “I belong to the Shirazi jurisdiction, which means I follow him, I choose to follow the grand Shirazi Marja…” The video can be viewed in it’s entirety on Tawhidi’s FaceBook post.
Imam Tawhidi operated under the username “@Tawhidicom” from July 10, 2013, the date his profile indicates he first joined Twitter, through February of 2016 when he became “@ImamofPeace,” which remains his current active username. In a recent response to Lalo Dagach’s May 28, 2017 tweet (who contacted Zuhdi Jasser on social media regarding Jasser’s Asia Times editorial referencing tweets from the account @BrotherTawhidi), Tawhidi tweeted “people were warned since 2013” that the @BrotherTawhidi account was “fake.” Despite the fact that the “BrotherTawhidi” account is the second result shown by Google when doing a search for Imam Tawhidi, the tweet to Dagach was the only indication from Tawhidi that the alternate account is “fake,” and it has since been deleted by Tawhidi. While an impostor account violates Twitter’s impersonation policy, which allows “parody” accounts but requires them to be clearly identified as such, the “BrotherTawhidi” account has not been removed by Twitter, despite its non-compliance with the policy… but the two “warnings” about the “fake” account have been removed by Tawhidi. Continue reading to see that when Tawhidi denies ownership of the “BrotherTawhidi” tweets, he is given the benefit of the doubt based on the “honor system,” a system that he is incapable of abiding by.
After many silly mistakes, mishaps, misguidances, and crazy statements of Tawhidi in the past, Tawhidi was advised by his teacher, mentor and idol – Sayed Sadiq al-Shirazi – to change his ways. To understand the relationship between the two, see here.
Tawhidi produced a letter, stating he is changing his ways.
A few important points to note about this letter. We will also highlight which are lies according to the general masses of Shia.
- He admits his past was filled with controversy.
- His past statements were taught to him (lies, they are not the true teachings of the Shia).
- Those past statements were not introduced by him, but rather – he was the first to publicize them in the English language. (lies, the Islamic Seminaries do not teach this rubbish).
- None of the teaching he said are incorrect in his opinion.
- He believes these teachings were better of…
View original post 104 more words
Tawhidi brought a lot of hatred with him when he returned back to Australia, where cursing & swearing became second nature to him.
He would often insult two historical figures in particular.
- Umar bin al-Khattab, the second caliph in Islam.
- Aisha bint Abi Bakr, the daughter of the first caliph in Islam.
No doubt, the Shia are no fans of these two figures – and disassociate themselves from them, as they played big roles in the history of Islam. Umar played an instrumental role in usurping the caliphate from the rightful successor, Ali bin abi Taleb (as). While Aisha raised the sword against Imam Ali (as) during his caliphate.
However, what Tawhidi did was something unheard of among the Shia, and certainly against the teachings of the purified household of the Prophet (as), whom the Shia adhere to. Tawhidi made hatred the only fundamental foundation of everything in the religion…
View original post 362 more words
In May of 2016, Imam Tawhidi was “gifting” an Islamic law book to Australians that was written by his teacher and mentor, Sayid Sadiq Shirazi. Tawhidi has quickly gained attention for his outlandish statements that are difficult to ignore. As demonstrative as Tawhidi is with his inflammatory statements about Islam, what speaks the loudest are the words he has not said; “I am morally outraged by Sayid Sadiq Shirazi’s teachings on child marriage, female genital mutilation, the need to implement Sharia Law across the globe, and his abhorrent misogyny that treats women as second class citizens.” Why is Tawhidi condemning others for the exact same vile fatwas found in the book he was distributing? Tawhidi has not condemned Shirazi for his heinous ideas that must be defeated, rather he continues to promote Shirazi while lying about what the book actually says. Tawhidi can also be seen promoting the book in this television interview (see minute 3:09).
The 900+ pages of medieval, misogynistic sharia law endorse child marriage stating:
“It is desirable (mostahab) to encourage early marriage of the girl who has reached the adolescence age.”
It is imperative that the leaders who deal with the affairs of the youth facilitate the marriage of the youth at an early age. It is imperative to obliterate those practices and customs that hinder marriage, such as high and excessive dowries, grand ceremonies that are normally beyond the reach of most youth. Furthermore, other marriage hindrances, or excuses for its delay, which counter the natural disposition of the individual, should be ignored; these include [university] education, or military service, or that ‘one has not prepared himself yet.’”
The book also condones female genital mutilation, and polygamy. It instructs women to ask their husband’s permission before leaving the home in order to not deprive him of his “right” to have sex at his beckon call, and explicitly states “men are in charge of women.” While women are given the right to work (per the approval of her husband, and assuming it does not interfere with her “shari’ah defined duties that she is bound to”), women are to receive half the pay they are entitled to. While the face veil is “recommended and encouraged” at all times, it is mandatory if the face “attracted attention.” Tawhidi gives the impression that he opposes all of this barbarism, but will not utter a single criticism towards Shirazi for his grotesque teachings that Tawhidi actively promotes. Perhaps this anomaly presents an opportune time to explain that according to Shirazi, “taqiyyah is obligatory,” as the book reads:
“Taqiyyah is not hypocrisy; rather, it is the opposite of hypocrisy. This is because hypocrisy is to hide disbelief and pretend Islam, whereas taqiyyah is to pretend disbelief and suchlike and hide faithfulness.”
Tawhidi epitomizes the concept of taqiyyah, as he hides his faithfulness to Shirazi’s brand of Islam by pretending to reject the vile practices through his condemnation of others.
Imam Tawhidi blames Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism (an offshoot of Sunni Islam) for the violence and bloodshed that is occurring across the globe. He passes the sectarian litmus test by frequently voicing his opposition to the Iranian regime, and has cited his affiliation with the Shirazi jurisdiction as evidence that he does in fact oppose Iran. Herein lies the problem in that Shirazi and his followers are not bona fide opposition to Iran, rather the Shirazi jurisdiction resents the fact that their brand of Islamic government (Shurat al-Faqih, or multiple Muslim leaders who govern based on the Quran) was not implemented during the Iranian Revolution. To Shirazi’s dismay, Iran implemented the system that is still in tact today, Wilayat al-Faqih, or a nation governed by the Quran and a single Muslim ruler. Shirazi’s preferred government is by no means less atrocious, rather the primary difference is the number of Muslim men who are in charge. Ironically, Tawhidi passes the sectarian litmus test by following a scholar who is arguably the “most” sectarian.
Imam Tawhidi, I’ve posted this before, and offer the benefit of the doubt that you haven’t seen it given the high volume of traffic on your social media accounts. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to answer my countless questions over the past several months. I’ve made good on my promise to research you before asking redundant questions, and that research has left me unable to understand why you are not appalled by the teachings of Sayyid Sadiq Shirazi. In May of 2016, long after your alleged change of heart, you were “gifting” Shirazi’s book, ‘Islamic Law; A Handbook of Rulings on Muslim’s Duties and Practices,’ to Australian residents, and the book condones child marriages. It explicitly states:
“It is imperative that the leaders who deal with the affairs of the youth facilitate the marriage of the youth at an early age. It is imperative to obliterate those practices and customs that hinder marriage, such as high and excessive dowries, grand ceremonies that are normally beyond the reach of most youth. Furthermore, other marriage hindrances, or excuses for its delay, which counter the natural disposition of the individual, should be ignored; these include [university] education, or military service, or that ‘one has not prepared himself yet.’”
Shirazi’s book goes on to state “It is desirable (mostahab) to encourage early marriage of the girl who has reached the adolescence age,” which is nine lunar years according to the book, and a lecture you gave a year ago.
Is child marriage a disgusting practice, and you condemn anyone who advocates for it including Sayyid Sadiq Shirazi? You’ve said he was your “teacher,” and it means nothing, but that is quite different than disassociating yourself from him on the premise that his ideas are vile and must be defeated.
Also of concern is the statement in Shirazi’s book that political parties are only acceptable if they are “the first step for the creation of an assembly for the implementation of the rulings of the Islamic Shari’ah…” The book also permits the use of chemical weapons, and expresses anti-Western sentiment that contradicts your representation of Shirazi as one who admires the west. It is available here…
You have made known your position on Wahhabi sharia, and we are in agreement that it is horrific. I see it as problematic that rather than voicing equal opposition to Sayyid Sadiq Shirazi’s 900 page book of medieval, misogynistic sharia, you were distributing it, thereby endorsing it. Such an imbalance presents a serious conflict of interest, and gives credence to the argument that you are sectarian acting in the interest of the Shirazi jurisdiction.
Such an imbalance presents a serious conflict of interest, and gives credence to the argument that you are sectarian acting in the interest of the Shirazi jurisdiction.
Please do not delete this post, and avoid my question about Sayyid Sadiq Shirazi and his teachings. Although that would technically answer my question, it is not the answer I’m hopeful of receiving.