Chapter One – Glimpses into the Iranian revolution and the stance adopted by the Muslims

Khomeini Between Extremism And Moderation – Foreword
May 12, 2020
Our Differences With The Rawafid In The Principle As Well As Secondary Aspects Of Creed
May 12, 2020

BACK Return to Table of contents


Chapter One

  • Glimpses into the Iranian revolution and the stance adopted by the Muslims
  • Our differences with the Rawafid in the principle as well as secondary aspects of creed
  • What the scholars of al Jarh wa al Ta’dil have said regarding the Rawafid
  • The Shia of today pose a greater danger to Islam than the Shia of the past
  • Khomeini, the leader of the Shia, a zealot in his creed


Glimpses Into The Iranian Revolution And The Stance Adopted By The Muslims



You are pure my Lord. In your hands lies all dominions. When you intend for a matter, you say “Be,” and it is.



Looking into the past we find the Shah of Iran had become egotistical, making headway into developing nuclear weapons and planning to establish military presence in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula.

The Shah put his faith in his army, who possessed the latest weaponry of the era, and in his intelligence service—The SAVAK—who had advanced spyware. Members of the intelligence service were placed in every city, town, and Iranian institution.

In the outer rim the Shah relied on his ally, the United States who were industrious in plotting schemes which solved the Shah’s issues with his neighbours, thus securing him from them and them from him. He was therefore under the impression that his road in restoring the splendour of Khosrow Anushirvan, ‘King of Kings’, had been paved for him.

Peril struck from an avenue he did not consider; the Iranian streets had blown up after the events that occurred in Tabriz and Isfahan six months prior.[1]

Protests became widespread in the various cities and the sentiments echoed was one, despite the partialities amongst different groups. A single slogan was raised, ‘Remove the Shah, and establish democracy’.

The citizens paid no heed to the Shah and his monarchy. They turned their attention to their great leader ‘Khomeini’ who was at the time residing in France.

The tyrant of Tehran was under the impression that it would be easy to put an end to the protests and so he used mechanisms of fear and hope. People from the inner circle were brought to trial on charges of corruption and he promised an election to institute a democracy. Except, he failed in this attempt to quell the unrest.

He then introduced a military government and resorted to violence which only strengthened the resistance and posed a greater risk to him. His spokespeople began talking of his possible recourse to India and of establishing a guardian council to administer the nations matters.

At this point people started looking towards Khomeini who had begun talking of an Islamic Republic and its merits in various fields. He spoke of its possible relationship with other great nations and those that neighboured Iran. His advisors convened seminars and plainly outlined the blueprint they had devised to govern Iran.

Such dialogue no doubt attracted the attention of international media corporations. This was because the land of Iran had been blessed with certain specificities. It held a strategic location in international waters and it neighboured superpowers; the Soviet Union in the North and the Gulf States together with Iraq to the west. It was also a global figure in oil production and export, which was of vital interest to America, the West, and the Jews. This is why several accords were in place between Iran and these nations.

A point to note is that these riots occurred after the Afghan coup d’état, after the events in the horn of Africa, and after the fighting that had erupted between the North and South of Yemen.

The Shah had warm relations with the Zionist regime and therefore the keen attention of the world to the happenings of Iran was no surprise.

For more than six months the events of Iranians continued to make headlines in the majority of the global press. An outline of what was said can be summarized in the following points:

  1. Imam Ruh Allah Khomeini is the leader of an Islamic Revolution. Interviews were conducted with him which spoke of his piety and abstinence and that he intends to establish Islamic rule.

The Shia covered their ‘Khomeini’ by an aura of greatness and attributed miracles and supernatural occurrences to him.

  1. The Iranian Revolution furthers the interest of the Islamic Brotherhood movement, the Mawdudi movement in Pakistan, and the Islamic movement in Indonesia.
  2. Islamic movements have adopted violence and the global media houses have taken an alarmist stance by rousing incitation and warning of the dangers posed by the Islamic movements.
  3. The media also assumed that the contemporary Islamic groups were not capable of governing. They reckoned them to be left-wing factions that build upon Islamists theory.


The falsities of the media seeped into the minds of the general Muslim populous. They were influenced by what had been said regarding Khomeini and his name became synonymous with the greats of the Ahlus Sunnah in the modern era.

The ideas perpetuated by Muslims regarding Khomeini and his acts pained us. We waited for the Islamic media to issue a statement refuting the falsities of the national and international media; however, our hopes faded when the 30th issue of the Majallah al Da’wah al Qahirah was published in the beginning of Dhu al Hijjah 1398 A.H. We were shocked by what it said regarding Khomeini and his advances.

It spoke of the Rawafid in Iran from 1954 just as it spoke of the Muslim Brotherhood. When it mentioned Khomeini, it read, ‘al Imam Ruh Allah Khomeini’ and supposed that behind the Shah’s media attack on Khomeini were the Jews and Baha’i.

It then sought to connect the Rawafid uprising to the actions of the Ahlus Sunnah by stating:


They say it is dark Marxist forces or Marxian Muslims… and this is not surprising as Islam was viewed by the Indonesian Suharto as an extremist ideology which the law should punish. Further, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt 1954-1965 were accused of cooperating with the English, Communists, Zionists, America, and other such elements. It, however, brought on governance systems in our Muslim world together with its media, politics, and orientations.[2]


May Allah guide those of al Da’wah, how was it possible for the Jews and the Baha’is to be behind the bad state press against Khomeini? Anyone with some sense will know that the Jews were part of the initial Rawafid movement – and continue to be so – whilst the Baha’is are a sect borne of the extremist Rawafid.

How did those at al Da’wah connect the Rawafid to the actions of the Ahlus Sunnah whereas it is clear as day that whenever a branch of disbelief emerged in our Muslim World, it grew by the ideologies of Tashayyu’!

What evidence did those at al Da’wah rely on when reporting the Khomeini movement was upheld by the Muslim population in order to preserve his identity!

After al Da’wah we received al Ra’id, published in Aachen, German. We found it to have taken a keen interest in the Rawafid revolution. Notably, some of its readers were opposed to such a notion of confidence in the Rawafid, and so the magazine refuted them saying:


We once again affirm here out stance with the Muslim mujahidin in Iran who are fighting against the Shah and his corrupt system as well as against the worship of America and the west. We call upon the Muslims in every area to adopt this stance and pursue it. At our paper al Ra’id, we present greetings of all the Islamic vanguards to those fighting here.[3]


In the same edition, it spoke of Iran at three other places. If it points to anything, it points to al Ra’id having placed high hopes in the Khomeini movement.

The opinions of al Ra’id regarding the Shah of Iran is true. As for them calling the Rawafid Muslim warriors, it is an opinion we shall expand on further.

The admirers of both magazines, al Da’wah and al Ra’id, took to the views published with acceptance and appreciation. This became the de-facto political view of many Muslims who did not worry themselves to study the Rawafid creed. It is quite evident that al Da’wah and al Ra’id furthered the Rawafid uprising.

Based on the above mentioned factors, we deem it necessary to pen down the following in the paragraphs below:

  1. Our differences with the Rawafid in the principle as well as secondary aspects of creed.
  2. What the scholars of al Jarh wa al Ta’dil have said regarding the Rawafid.
  3. The Shia of today pose a greater danger to Islam than the Shia of the past.
  4. The opinion of contemporary scholars.


We will ensure that our discussion is based on evidence. Further, the subject of our discussion are those Imamiyyah, Jafari, Shia who Khomeini and his supporters affiliate themselves to. As for the other fringe groups, our stance regarding them may differ.


NEXT⇒ Our Differences With The Rawafid In The Principle As Well As Secondary Aspects Of Creed

[1] This was written in the in the early part 1979 whilst Khomeini was in Paris and before the Shah left Tehran. The events of Tabriz occurred in the middle of 1978. The chapter was then slightly amended.

[2] Al Da’wah, no. 30, 1-12-1398 A.H. under the title, Uprising in Iran, dark Marxist or Iranian Muslims?, ‘Abdul Mun’im Jabarah.

[3] Al Ra’id, no. 34, Dhu al Hijjah 1398.

Back to top