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.
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.