Khomeini, The Leader Of The Shia, a Zealot In His Creed

The Shia Of Today Pose a Greater Danger To Islam Than The Shia Of The Past
May 12, 2020
Chapter Two – Preface
May 12, 2020

BACK Return to Table of contents


Khomeini, The Leader Of The Shia, a Zealot In His Creed


We have before us three books of Khomeini:

  1. Wilayat al Faqih or al Hukumat al Islamiyyah. Published in 1389 A.H.
  2. Min Huna al Muntalaq: A collection of the chapters from his book, Tahrir al Wasilah. Published in 1394 A.H.
  3. Jihad al Nafs aw Jihad al Akbar. Published in 1392 A.H.

Based on these books we may determine his views as they capture the essence of his ideologies. Further, we have no evidence that he retracted from his views and beliefs. Based on this, we conclude the following observations:

Firstly, all his writings touch on the subject of governance, especially Iranian governance. On this matter he calls for an Islamic Shia government, not once talking of collaborating with the Ahlus Sunnah.

The governance system that he speaks of assumes responsibility on behalf of the hidden infallible Imam, whilst viewing all other governance systems as unjust. He also opines that a true representation of Islamic governance was during the era of the Prophet and that of ‘Ali. He skips the time period of the Khulafa al Rashidin by which he refuses to acknowledge their rule, stating this plainly at times without mentioning their names.[1]

Khomeini pronounces that Islamic unity can only be achieved through adopting their dogma and principles. Regarding their Imams he says:


وان من ضروریات مذهبنا أن لأئمتنا مقاما لا يبلغه ملك مقرب، ولا ينبی مرسل

Amongst the fundamental beliefs of our creed is that our Imams hold a position not attained by an Angel or Prophet.[2]


Secondly, in his book Jihad al Nafs aw Jihad al Akbar he speaks of virtues, exemplary character, and the necessity of fighting the base desires. Within this framework he brings up the name of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu as though he is an accursed devil. Consider the following statement of his:


ومعاوية ترأس قومه اربعين عاما، ولكنه لم يكسب لنفسه سوى لعنة الدنيا وعذاب الآخرة

Muawiyah governed for forty years. In this time the only thing he attained was the curse of this world and punishment of the hereafter.[3]


How did Khomeini dare to insult such a revered Sahabi, a writer of revelation? How could he make such impudent claims on Allah, pronouncing that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu would be punished in the hereafter? Has he looked into the unseen, or has he taken from the Most Merciful a promise?

We, the Ahlus Sunnah, believe that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is better than thousands of the so called Ayatollahs whom the Shia have connived and attributed to Allah. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has stated:

لا تسبوا أصحابي، فوالذي نفسي بیدة لو أنفق أحدكم مثل أحد ذهبا ما أدرك مد أحدهم ولا نصيفه

Do not revile my Companions; by him in whose hand my soul is, if one of you gave in charity the amount of gold equivalent to Uhud, it would not amount to as much as the mudd[4] of one of them, or half of it.[5]


Lastly, Khomeini launched an attack against the scholars. He also attacked some of those Shia scholars who cooperated with the government of the Shah. He states:


وبالطبع فقهاؤنا کما تعرفون من صدر الاسلام والى يومنا هذا أجل من أن ينزلوا إلى ذلك المستوى الوضيع، وفقهاء السلاطين كانوا دائما من غير جماعتنا، وعلى غير رأينا

And of course, our jurists from the early Islamic times to now are far removed from stooping to such a low level. The jurists of the Sultans, however, have always ascribed to a creed other than ours and adopted a view opposing to ours.


What he intends by this, is that they are the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah. And by the Sultans, he intends all the Muslims leaders besides ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. He does though exclude from this attack the Tatar agent thug, Nasir al Din al Tusi. He states:


الا ان یکون دخوله الشكلي، نصر حقيقي للاسلام والمسلمين، مثل دخول علي بن يقطين ونصير الدين الطوسي رحمها الله

Except for those who appeared to be amongst them but were in reality supporters of the Muslims and the Islamic cause, such as ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin and Nasir al Din al Tusi rahimahu Llah.[6]


Thus, according to Khomeini cooperating with the al Khulafa al Rashidin is impermissible whilst al Tusi’s cooperation with the Tatars is permissible!


مَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُوْنَ ، أَمْ لَكُمْ كِتَابٌ فِيْهِ تَدْرُسُوْنَ ، إِنَّ لَكُمْ فِيْهِ لَمَا تَخَيَّرُوْنَ

What is [the matter] with you? How do you judge? Or do you have a scripture in which you learn. That indeed for you is whatever you choose?[7]


What our scholars of hadith have said regarding the Shia:

  1. Al Sheikh al Mujaddid al Alusi

Under the commentary of verse 29 of Surah al Fath he passes the judgment of disbelief against the Rawafid based on their aversion for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. He relies on the views of the predecessors of the ummah in the passing of this verdict. He says:


وفي المواهب أن مالكا قد استنبط من هذه الآية تكفير الروافض الذين يبغضون الصحابة رضي الله عنهم، فانهم يغيظونهم، ومن غاظ الصحابة فهو كافر ووافقه كثير من العلماء

It is mentioned in al Mawahib that Malik deduced the disbelief of the Rawafid who show aversion to the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum from this verse. They spite the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and whoever does so is a disbeliever. Many of the scholars concur with him.[8]


  1. Muhibb al Din al Khatib

He is from amongst those scholars who stood up to the Rafidi deluge and left behind many important works in this aspect, most notably:

    1. Al Khutut al ‘Aridah
    2. Hashiyah al Muntaqa min Minhaj al I’tidal
    3. Hashiyah al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim

Al Khatib was of the view that facing the Rawafid was permissible as the foundation of their creed differs to the foundation of ours; the differences run deep, they are not superficial. He cites the following statement of Abu Zur’ah al Razi as evidence to their disbelief:


اذا رأيت الرجل ينقص أحدا من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فاعلم أنه زنديق

If you see a man disparaging any of the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then know he is a Zindiq[9].[10]


  1. Al Hilali

He travelled between India, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula where he lived in close proximity with the Rawafid. In one of his works, he has recorded dialogues that transpired between him and some of their scholars. This work of his is entitled, Munazaratan Bayn Rajul Sunni wa Huwa al Duktur Muhammad Taqi al Din al Hilali al Hussaini wa Imamayn Mujtahidayn Shi’iyyin.

This work of al Hilali stands to pass a verdict of disbelief against the Rawafid starting with their names the likes of; ‘Abdul Hussain, ‘Abd ‘Ali, ‘Abdul Zahra’, and ‘Abdul Amir. He then discusses the dialogue that between him and their Sheikh, ‘Abdul Muhsin al Kazimi at al Mahmara. Al Hilali states he heard them addressing Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha as ‘Ya Mal’unah (O accursed one), he also heard from al Kazimi heinous profanities aimed at Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and also him holding the view that the Quraysh erased much from the Qur’an.

He then notes a debate that happened between him and al Sheikh Mahdi al Qazwini who repudiated the statement of al Kazimi regarding interpolation of the Qur’an. However, this repudiation of his was merely Taqiyyah; a claim supported by the fact that he had authored a book in which he incorporated a refutation of al Hilali and his article in Majallah al Manar under the title Al Qadi al ‘Adl fi Hukm al Bina’ ‘ala al Qubur.

We will suffice by mentioning the statements of these scholars, whilst those who wish to view a more detailed discussion may refer to our book, Wa Ja’ Dawr al Majus.[11] Other scholars who hold similar strong views regarding the Rawafid are:

    1. Sheikh Muhammad Bahjah al Baytar
    2. Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Rida
    3. Sheikh Mustafa al Siba’i
    4. Sheikh ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Baz
    5. Sheikh Muhammad Amin al Shinqiti
    6. Sheikh Muhammad Nasir al Din al Albani.



Some students of knowledge cannot come to terms with citing the Shia as disbelievers based on the fact that the early scholars only cited the extremists amongst the Shia as disbelievers.

Well yes, it is not permitted to put a blanket ruling of disbelief against the Shia as there are many groups that could fall under this designation:

  • Those Sahabah and Tabi’in who stood with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and a great number of Tabi’in who were from the ‘Shia’ of al Hussain. We speak only good of them.
  • The Zaidiyyah. The followers of Zaid ibn ‘Ali. They consider ‘Ali to be more virtuous, whilst still acknowledging the caliphate of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum.
  • In every era we find individuals who widely proclaim their support to the Ahlul Bayt. This does not remove them from the faith.

As for the Imamiyyah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah Jafariyyah who revile the Companions of the Prophet, deny the Sunnah, and believe that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum removed even a single verse Qur’an, we have no doubt of their disbelief, they are far removed from Islam:

  • Since we differ with the Rawafid in the principle and secondary aspects of faith.
  • Since the eminent scholars of Khayr al Qurun (Best of generations) consider them to be the greatest of liars and furthest from the faith.
  • Since the contemporary erudite scholars share the same views regarding the Shia of today that the early scholars had.

How is it possible that some preachers have taken to including the Imamiyyah Shia under the umbrella of the Ahlus Sunnah in the Islamic world?

How can they opine them to be Muslim warriors and Islamic stalwarts, further encouraging Muslims to assist them and stand with them?

We cannot fathom how they have adopted such a stance. Is it possible to keep our political opinions separate from the dogma of the shari’ah; is it possible to dismember Islam in this manner?

Does Islamic unity mean we should sell our faith for petty change? May such unity be cursed that comes with reviling the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and does not lay on the pristine foundations of the Islamic faith.


NEXT⇒ Chapter Two – Preface

[1] Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah, pg. 132.

[2] Ibid, pg. 52.

[3] Jihad al Nafs aw Jihad al Akbar, pg. 18.

[4] A unit of measurement equivalent to approximately 750 ml.

[5] Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2540.

[6] Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah, pg. 142.

[7] Surah al Qalam: 36-38.

[8] Ruh al Ma’ani, vol. 26 pg. 116.

[9] One who adheres to beliefs which are unanimously branded as disbelieve in the Shari’ah.

[10] Muqaddimah Minhaj al I’tidal, pgs. 6-10.

[11] See, pg. 142 and after.

Back to top