Thread by @ImamofIbleace

THREAD: Mohammad Tawhidi’s ideology or mission?

For an imam @Imamofpeace
who goes around and challenges individuals to debate and claiming to be an authority, he has no essential mechanism by which somebody debating him can understand what his driving ideology actually is. 1/30

He doesn’t declare what he stands for. His only ideology that he declares fealty to is Shirazi’s ideology,and thus, understanding the source of his ideas would otherwise be an adventure in speculation and fantasy. Other than his short book which is vacuous (reviewed later), 2/30

he has no material on his websites that are narratives, running in depth commentary, or source material demonstrating his ideology. Frequent changes to the content on his website prohibit any vetting of his ideology. There is no way to determine what he stands for when 3/30

there is so little consistency or permanence. His tweets and his facebook posts also change on a daily basis with a large portion deleted by various “acts of nature” or conspiracies. Contrarily, our American Islamic Forum for Democracy @AIFDemocracy has posted or linked 4/30

on our website every piece we have written since our origin in March of 2003. They haven’t been massaged, modified nor deleted as Tawhidi is want to do with his work. In fact, he frightened @asiatimesonline enough to remove our piece about him. See: 5/ 30 aifdemocracy.org/is-tawhidi-the…

We have a clear and consistent footprint that can easily be tracked. This is far from the reality with Mr. Tawhidi and his various organizations. All of this can be verified on the waybackmachine and other snapshots we have provided in this analysis. If you look at 6/30

Tawhidi’s @HuffPost pieces, (his only known existing op-eds),he never used the term “Islamism” until he was confronted on it by Dr. Jasser @DrZuhdiJasser , and he still seems to have no concept of what it is. With that, only few of his columns remain. 7/30 huffpost.com/author/imam-ta…

This is all indicative of his want to only tell people exactly what they want to hear regardless of whether he believes true. What’s previous and inconsistent gets removed. As evident in his responses to Dr. Jasser, Tawhidi’s ideology seems to be one of dismissiveness 8/30

without detail or references and personal attacks without any accountability for his own hypocrisy.
In one of Tawhidi’s @HuffPost editorials, he endorses the concept of an Islamic government. After providing a link to one of Shirazi’s books, Tawhidi states “It is safe to say 9/30

that, after reading this book, one will find that such a perfect government does not exist on the face of the earth.” Such an position is incomprehensible for a reformer against theocracy, and indicative of his scattered logic. 10/30

In a Facebook video response to @DrZuhdiJasser AsiaTimes editorial, Tawhidi indicated he chooses to follow
@SadiqShirazi, using his relationship w/ Shirazi jurisdiction to refute Dr. Jasser’s comment about Tawhidi not criticizing Iran and Hezbollah. 11/30 facebook.com/theimamofpeace…

Tawhidi has since become incredibly outspoken against the Iranian regime via Facebook and Twitter, but he is yet to write any intellectual pieces or op-eds in any circulation that discusses any of the specifics of his ideologies. Twitter 280 character comments do not make 12/30

an opinion verified, nor of any use. An imam who honestly, genuinely wants to reform Islam should have pieces, chapters, references online readily available in weekly growing volume of material discussing his problems for example with Nasarallah’s (head of Hezbollah) laws, 13/30

sermons, and other academic delineations of his own ideology. The recognition Mr. Tawhidi has gotten does not fit his complete absence of any intellectual deconstructions of the ideologies he claims to dismiss and counter. It is important to note that all of his criticisms 14/30

about Hezbollah and Iranian regime for example only came after Dr. Jasser’s criticism that all of Tawhidi’s identification of groups he rejected were Sunni radical groups with no Shia groups. Upon grasping the sectarian dynamics, it is logical to notice that the hostility 15/30

Tawhidi now spews towards Iranian regime does not stem repetitively from a human rights perspective, rather it seems to stem from a deep-seated resentment as a follower of Shirazi and his clan who are against the Khomeinists. On his appearance in the “Secular Jihadist” 16/30

podcast, Tawhidi was any specific issues he disagreed with Shirazi on. His response was “I am not on Shirazi’s level of education in Islam to clash with him ideologically.” He bizarrely makes gross generalizations about “Islam” on a daily basis. 17/30

Revealing his taqqiya (dissimulation) is the fact that sectarian dynamics initially give the impression that he criticizes both Sunni and Shia denominations. However, Tawhidi adamantly refuses to condemn the faults within his own subsect of Shi’ism, 18/30 landofthefree1776.com/2017/07/22/the…

which likely stems from his belief that Shirazi’s methods are “perfect.” Contrary to what we’d expect from a legitimate reformer, Tawhidi openly advocates for Shirazi and whitewashes Shirazi’s vile, antiquated ideas. In fact, his contrary gross generalizations about Sunnis 19/30

and known Sunni historical figures is far from academic and more pandering to the ignorant or his primary Shi’a constituency. In fact, his gross language in describing various Sunni figures reveals his visceral and less than academic agenda. Tawhidi regularly indicates that 20/30

Shirazi was his teacher, yet Tawhidi refuses to criticize Shirazi’s ideas. Real reform cannot happen if somebody maintains fealty to anyone. It needs to be individualized approach against all Islamist power structures and Islamist ideas. Shirazi is an Islamist through any 21/30

read of his book. If Tawhidi was honest, he’d start with deconstruction of faults within Shirazi ideologies, and texts that condone a whole host of behaviors, practices, ideas that are incompatible with western freedom, human rights, and liberalism 22/30

At @AIFDemocracy we will often say we look towards Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, James Madison and other Western scholars in addition to Abdullai Na’im, Mustafa Akyol, Fazlur Rahman, Bassam Tibi, Fatima Marnissi, A. Wahid and other Muslim scholars that we use to discuss 23/30

and demonstrate as thinkers that are counter/anti-Islamist, pro-liberty, and pro-universal human rights. Tawhidi never names any other scholars to whom someone is to believe have impacted his own beliefs,and if he is so brilliant that all of his ideas have come from within, 24/30

they are nowhere to be found on the internet or publicly.

As to Authoritarian ideology: Tawhidi
@Imamofpeace has repeatedly endorsed methods similar to Saudi government/Iranian regime and other tyrannical military states for controlling against radical Islamist influence 25/30

or those against whom he is “reforming”. Tawhidi clearly has no concept of a liberal, democratic state and has not demonstrated any ability to define that as his goal, proving that he is not an advocate of freedom and liberty, but rather about authoritarianism, as long as 26/30

it includes direction and control by Shirazi’s cronies. His @HuffPost piece on true “Islamic State” uses fact that Khomeinists drink alcohol to prove their duplicity as not being Islamic state. Then he repeatedly therein cites the example of a state run by the likes of 27/30

of Shirazi as being the ideal state, quoting Shirazi’s text: “Politics the Very Heart of Islam”. How anyone could write that Huffington Post and then claim to not be an Islamist, let alone an anti-Islamist is an exercise in mental jujitsu fit for Hizballah. 28/30

@JordanSchachtel calls out Tawhidi for advocacy of a police state (Note: every link is broken, as Tawhidi has deleted the tweets sometime after the criticism). In a Facebook video. Imam Tawhidi suggests privately hanging terrorists by a crane 29/30 conservativereview.com/news/the-imam-…

the same hour they’re arrested. This shows a man who operates from only cathartically demagogically telling segments of the pop. what he feels they want to hear. He doesn’t operate from a place of human rights nor freedom, just authoritarianism. 30/30