The Iranian Embassy Slammed by the Previous Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal

The then Jamiat known as JUT (Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal) now known as Jamiatul Ulama South Africa cannot say the reality of the Non Islamic Revolution. We must place on record the stamina of the previous Jamiat and note down some major changes with the current.

Do you know the Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi came to South Africa in Feb 2024 to meet with SA President Cyril Ramaphosa?

Cyril Ramaphosa and the ANC are twin figures in the current Jamiat’s adulterated Islam. Yet total silence from the Jamiatul Ulama South Africa!

Knowing these facts we would like to ask the current Jamiat a simple question!

Can you copy and paste the same article from your spiritual elders whom you have spoken about and post it on your current website? Further why were these valuable articles to benefit the Ummah in these trying and dying times against the Shia made inaccessible?

Let us now witness what the real Jamiat was! How firm they were in their response to the Iranian Embassy. Take note this letter is a teaser from their old website. The serious readers can access the pdf at the bottom:

Mr. M.H. Borjian Yazdi
Cultural Attaché
Iranian Embassy

Receipt has been taken of your letter dated 15 August 1999, in which you voiced dissatisfaction with
the article Abdullah ibn Saba: The Founder of Shi‘ism.

Your concern as the diplomatic representatives of Iran over an article of this nature is understood.
Understood too, are the sentiments you express where you say that “it is regrettable that in an era
when the Muslims need to more than ever united against their fierce enemies; especially so
amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shia’s; such disturbing accusations are
spread out not giving enough time and means to Shia’s and their beliefs.”

Sunnism & Shi‘ism
However, as much as one would want to gloss over the differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and
the Shi‘ah, the fact of the matter is that the differences do exist, and that by their very nature they
make each group’s claim to the Truth an exclusive one.
It is precisely for this reason that the propagation of Shi‘ism has continued unabatedly in Sunni
societies, more often than not with funding from, and the sanction of, Iran. To the best of our
knowledge your government has never expressed the least reservation over the huge amount of
Shi‘i propagationist literature flowing to Sunni communities out of Iran, nor about the activities of
missionaries actively engaged in the propagation of Shi‘ism amongst Sunnis, with financial backing
from Iranian foundations.

This has given rise to a situation where the Ahl as-Sunnah have become so alarmed by the rate of
proselytising in their communities that calls of people like yourself for “Muslim unity in the face of
the fierce enemies of Islam” have come to be seen as a smokescreening device intended to create
the diversion under cover of which Shi‘i missionaries will penetrate into Sunni societies. If this
assertion could once upon a time be dismissed as an unfounded assumption, it has now found a
basis for itself in two decades of bitter experience, in South Africa and elsewhere.
It is not intended here to deny you the right to propagate your beliefs, since the constitution of our
country upholds freedom of belief. Our intention is to bring it to your notice that when the Shi‘ah
have opted to exercise their right to propagate their faith, they should not be surprised or express
regret at the inevitable consequences.

When Iran declared Ithna ‘Ashari Shi‘ism the state religion, it set itself up as the champion of Shi‘ism.
(Incidentally this is also the reason why you, as the cultural attaché of your country, took exception
to the article Abdullah ibn Saba: The Founder of Shi‘ism.) Therefore it is fully comprehensible to us
why Iran will not permit Sunni missionary groups to operate on Iranian soil. But we become
completely mystified when we see the double standards of Iran itself sending missionaries, or
acquiescing to the funding and sending of missionaries to communities such as ours who are not in a
position to defend its faith through political or legal power.

Crux of the issue
This issue does not revolve simply around Ibn Saba. It goes much further than that. It has to do in the
first instance with each group’s claim to being the true form of Islam, and by logical extension, with
the way in which each group accounts for the existence of the other.

The Shi‘ah and the Ahl as-Sunnah both claim that their form of Islam is the true one. This assertion is
probably beyond contention from either side. The real problem lies in the implication of these
respective claims. If “A” lays claim to the truth, it is simultaneously claiming that the claim of “B” is
false, and vice versa. We know that this perspective of the relationship between the Ahl as-Sunnah
and the Shi‘ah is an extremely sensitive one, but it is a question that must be addressed if we are to
have an appreciation of all the various dimensions to this issue.

Shi‘ism makes no secret of the fact that it regards the faith and practice of the Ahl as-Sunnah as the
corruption of Islam by the Companions of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) primarily, and the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties secondarily.

References to support this contention abound in the books of the Shi‘ah, some of which are now quoted here:

God knows what misfortunes Islam has suffered from its inception down to the present at the hands
of these evil ‘ulama! Abu Hurayra was one of the fuqaha, but God knows what judgements he
falsified for Mu‘awiyah and others like him, and what damage he inflicted upon Islam. (Ayatullah
Khomeini, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini, p. 114, translated and
annotated by Hamid Algar).

We conclude here that the Shi‘ah are the true followers of the Prophetic Sunnah… Whereas the Ahl
as-Sunnah have expressly contradicted the Prophetic Sunnah. (Muhammad Tijani Samawi, The
Shi‘ah: The Real Followers of the Sunnah p. 314, Ansariyan Publications, Qum 1995)
It is self evident that the Khulafa ar-Rashidun (except Imam ‘Ali) have practised ijtihad with their
opinions against the Prophetic Sunnah. (ibid. p. 315)

The religion was exploited for the political needs. Both the Omayyids and the Abbasids deepened
and strengthened sectarian and religious prejudices among the Muslims in order to use them for
their own purposes. They exaggerated and amplified the idea of seniority of persons other than Ali
in the matter of the Caliphate.

In these efforts of theirs, they were helped by those Ulema (scholars) who cared much for the worldly positions. The rulers spent money on such scholars who in turn reported fabricated Traditions suitable to the rulers, especially during the Omayyid period, as we have already said. People follow the religion of their kings. They also said what their rulers did. Then came those who were not aware of the real situation. They saw these fabricated traditions and made-to-order injunctions and took them for true ones. They further passed them on in their books.

Those who came later found these Traditions in the books attributed to great personalities which
made them accept them as true. Thus these traditions got disseminated between the people.
Everyone read them, talked about them in their gatherings and discussed them in their classes and
schools. In this time passed on and such ideas got currency amongst the common masses so much
so that those who knew the truth were swept away by the pressure of public opinion and these false
ideas, which it is proper to discuss, took the form of a regular creed. (Hasan ul-Amine, Shorter Shi’ite
Encyclopaedia, pp. 78-79, Ansariyan Publications, Qum, 1997)
(For further reference, see the books an-Nass wal-Ijtihad by ‘Abd al-Husayn Sharaf ad-Deen,
and Ma‘alim al-Madrasatayn by Murtada al-‘Askari.)

We hope that notice will have been taken here of the fact that the quoted sources were published in
Iran within the last five years. If the Shi‘ah thus have a freedom of using the printed word for
disseminating their own opinion about the origin of Sunni faith and practice, we are baffled as to
why umbrage should be taken when the Ahl as-Sunnah express their honest opinion about the
origins of Shi‘ism. If Iranian sensors find nothing objectionable in literature such as the quoted
sources, why should Sunnis be expected to practice reservation?

And, if such inflammatory statements do not give you, the Shi‘ah, reason to regret that “in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever unite against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shia’s; such disturbing accusations are spread out”, why are we, the Ahl as-Sunnah, being told that making accusations like this spells disaster for Muslim unity? Surely the authors of the quoted sources were also not “giving enough time and means to Sunnis and their beliefs”.

For as long as the Shi‘ah will persist to view Muslim unity as a one-way street in which they alone
have the exclusive right to fling the stones and hurl the sticks, it will remain the mirage it presently

If, on the other hand, it is argued that these are things that are historically verifiable, we would
submit that if the act of verifying the truth is supposed to have a preconceived result, it is a
meaningless exercise. On the other hand, if it is going to be a completely objective process, it will
inevitably threaten the Muslim unity whose destruction you fear. But let us, for the sake of
demonstration, engage in just one such exercise.

Check Also

A Shia’s Truthful Words has Caused an Earthquake

Al Jazeera Arabic program “Al-Ittijaahul Ma’aaqis” anchor person ‘Dr. Faisal Qasim’ said that: An aide …

Open chat