Definitely there are Shiite scholars who criticised Khomeini because the same problem afflicting the sunni scholarship is equally present among the Shiites, infact their own can be considered worst as they drifted mostly towards Irjau.
The Iranians had been Shiites for centuries and their successive tyrannical regimes also have their own palace scholars who justify the attoricites. So Khomeini was a Shiite revolutionist but unfortunately he was a partisan bigot who had also inherited the Shiite bigotry.
The Shiites had also been docile, and kept quiet of tyranny. They left themselves to be oppressed by Tyrant Ruler because they believe that Mahdi would soon come to alleviate their suffering; but it was Khomeini who came with the doctrine of Wilayatul Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist), and so they were able to revolutionalise against the Shah (monarch)of Iran who had been using religion to enslave them into submission. Not only did they revolutionise against tyranny, they also did against westernisation and bowing down to Zionism and the so called World Powers.
Khomeini was partly influenced by the Ikhwani Sunni activism and the leader after him Ali Khamenei personally translated Milestone of Sayyid Qutb. So the tyrant rulers of the sunni world became afraid that the freedom of Shiites from Shah may be replicated in the sunni world by freeing themselves from tyranny and monarchy (which isn’t the Islamic way of choosing a leader), so the Tyrant kings engaged palace scholars and since the 1979 period, they began sponsoring scholars to write against Jamaa’ah (Islamic societies), protest, silence when being oppressed etc.
In this modern day, The Salafees have said that The Muslim Brotherhood called upon the leaders of Islamic movements in Turkey, Pakistan and some other countries to go to Tehran in a special plane and meet Ruholllah Khomeini in order to strengthen the solidarity of the Islamic movements like Ikhwaan muslimoon and some others….These people saying these should have equally elaborated thier motive for saying this, and if it is sinister, then such people would not mind criticizing great scholars of hadith like Imam Bukhari, Muslim and others for narrating hadith from narrators who are Shiites inclined. Perhaps such people may as well criticize the companions for been saddened when the pagan Persians defeated the christain Romans, and their jubilation when the Christian Romans later defeated the Persian. (Surat Room in retrospect)
There are Shiites (extremists) that are outrightly kufar, and those who are Mubtadee’ but still Muslim as said by Ibn Taemiyah, Ibn bazz and others. Just as we have the takfeeris and other heretics among the Sunnis.
A basic concept in Islamic political discourse is identifying the proximity of enemies to Islam. The Jews are dangerous to the Islamic identity than the Christians, the Christians are dangerous than the Shiites and the Shiites than the extreme Sufis. In situation when there is a stronger and greater enemy to the DEEN, we align with less dangerous enemy to crush the greatest and potent one. And in time of war, we support and pray for the lesser enemy (especially if they are Muslims – and the West identify us all with Islam) to emerge victorious.
The Romans were Christians, while the Persian were Polytheists. The companions(Sahabah) desired that the Roman Christians defeat the Polytheist Persian (even though they knew the Romans could still wage a war against the Muslims in future) and Allah the creator assured that the Romans will subsequently defeat the Persian.
The Shiites and the Sunnis and other Islamic tendencies had in the entire history of Islam fought side by side to crush the most dangerous foe of Islam. Unfortunately the folly of the Salafees is too apparent such that when Hizbullah who are Shiites were fighting the Isreal who is a greater enemy, they desire that Hizbullah is crushed, unknown that the Israel agenda is actually to crush any Muslim or identity against their agenda.
It was Sheikh Rabee’ Madkhali who started with the principle that “non-salafi” Muslims are more dangerous than Jew and Christian, hence his followers directed all their attentions at attacking and fighting their fellow Muslims.
Yes, Shiism is a bad market. A lot of Shiites are not well, some of them are very bad, but despite that, scholars of Sunnah still refer to the likes of Zayd Aliyy Zayn Al-Aabideen who wrote الروض النضير، شرح مجموع الفقه الكبير in fiqh, despite he was an Imam of the Zaydiyyah, also Abu Ja’far, Muhammad Bn Hasan bn Farrukh who died in the year 290AH (the founder of the Shiites Imaamiyyah)..The Imaamiyyah might be worse than the Zaydiyyah. In terms of fiqh, the Imaamiyyah are close to the Shaafi’iyah. In Iran, the majority if not all are Imaamiyyah.
I have said it earlier that there are also scholars like Imam Shawkani, and Sana’ani – the author of Subulu-s-Salaam سبل السلام who were moderate Zaidiyah Shittes, but many of the Shiites drifted into extremism of adoring Ahlul Bait and began to abuse some of the noble companions. They turn their heroes into deities and considered them infallible. The extremism and excessiveness of the Shiites drove them to introduce repugnant innovations. It is in Sufism and among the Sunnis too, if we are being sincere. The extremism of takfeer is on the same level if not worse than the one who abuses Sahabah. They are both Kabaa-ir. Just as it is not all Sunnis that do Takfeer of Muslims, it is likewise not all Shiites that abuse the Sahaabah.
In this age, the greatest affliction of the Ummah is neither ignorance nor lack of love or brotherhood; it is neither the dearth of intellect nor non-availability of resources. It is rather Al Guluw!(extremism) It is for this reason that the very group which considers itself to be Firqatul Najiyah (The Saved Sect) takes to unprecedented rancour and in-fighting (among themselves) – accusing one another of deviancy.
These are facts that no one can deny, those who keep ranting only show to us that they lack the capacity to fathom scholarship. Let any one of them research more with sincerity, you will see Allah will guide him to the truth.
The bitter truth is that you cannot satisfy mankind, if you try to satisfy some, others will react, so why disturbing yourself to satisfy mankind? Say the truth and move on. Those with intellectual might to research further will see the facts you have presented, it is better to be called names on truth than supporting fallacies all in the name of supporters.
I am not a Shiite and I will never be, but the divide and conquer strategy that has been used for decades by the Tyrant Arab leaders to manipulate the Muslims will never work anymore. The history must be set aright and our people should wake up that it is not the time to talk about the Aqeedah when there is conflict or war between and Islamic identity (Iran) and a more dangerous enemy of Islam. The talk on Aqeedah and listing out the evils of Shiism at that period of time is the usual sponsored propaganda championed by the Tyrant Arab leaders that cannot save themselves from their fellow Zionist allies.
May Allah grant Islam victory over tyranny, zionism, and its allies.
Written 5th of April, 2019.