How I Defeated "Ayatullah" Qazvini and His Representative

Several weeks ago, "Ayatullah" Qazvini of the Valiasr Institute issued a public challenge in a video, alleging that no one from the followers of Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan had ever accepted his prior invitations to debate. He claimed victory by default, even going so far as to celebrate with a cake showing Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan's face, cutting off the head as a symbol of triumph. In that same breath, he called Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan an apostate, deemed him impure, and declared his blood lawful to shed. He ended with a renewed invitation to debate, or even a Mubahala (a religious challenge to invite God's curse upon the liar), saying he was ready to bring his family and demanded that we do the same.

Video of "Ayatullah" Qazvini disrespecting Ahmed Al-Hassan

Aba Al- Sadiq appointed me to represent the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light in both the debate and the Mubahala. I accepted the challenge publicly, live on air. But instead of Ayatullah Qazvini himself, a man named Ali Sharifi appeared, claiming to be his representative, stating that his defeat would be Qazvini’s defeat. Sharifi reached out to us privately via our official Instagram account. Although our initial condition was for Qazvini to appear with his family, we agreed to the new terms. I proposed the debate topic: “How to Identify Imam Al-Mahdi and the Non-working Scholars in the End Times According to the Ahlul Bayt.”

Hamidreza Saghari appears with his family for the Mubahala

Sharifi responded not by discussion, but by unilaterally announcing in a video that we had accepted his terms. He set the debate date—April 19th, 7 PM UK time—and changed the topic to: “Conflicts and Contradictions in Ahmad AlBasri’s Religion, and Ahmad AlBasri as an Apostate.” Despite the sudden shift, I prepared to engage him head-on.

Sharifi requested our Skype ID and instructed us to be ready 40 minutes early. Yet, on Friday—one day before the event—he posted an Instagram story falsely claiming we had “escaped” because we hadn’t yet shared the ID. When I confronted him and clarified that we would submit it as scheduled, he demanded it immediately. We complied. He removed the initial post and replaced it with a new one, acknowledging that we had sent the ID and were ready. He made no mention of the Mubahala though.

We were fully prepared by 5 PM UK time—two hours before the appointed time. At 6 PM, Sharifi’s team contacted us, but they refused to enable video on Skype. Only audio was available. After an hour of negotiation, we agreed to a WhatsApp video call so we could broadcast their feed on our satellite channel.

The Debate

The debate began at 7:30 PM. His first question: summarize our beliefs and state our position on the Office of Najaf. I introduced myself as Hamidreza Saghari, Bishop of the Persian-speaking followers of Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan for over a decade. I explained our belief that Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan is divinely appointed by Imam Al-Mahdi. I reminded Sharifi to use the correct name: Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan. I told him, quite simply, I do not know who is “Ahmed AlBasri.”

After that the debate began:

1. The Prophet’s Will

Sharifi claimed the Prophet’s will was fabricated, citing “104 mistakes.” I responded by referencing Quranic verse 2:180, which obligates the writing of a will. I cited the Hadith of the Calamity of Thursday, which even Shia scholars use against Sunni claims. I explained that traditions clearly state the Qaim will emerge bearing the Prophet’s will, banner, and weapon. When asked how to recognize the Mahdi, Sharifi deferred to a “next session.”. It was clear that he did not have an answer to the question and wanted to deflect.

2. Misrepresentation of our Teachings

Sharifi alleged that we teach Adam fornicated with Fatimah. I categorically denied this lie. Nowhere in our books does it at that Adam fornicated with Fatimah. I also explained the “cursed tree” and “blessed tree” in the Quran refer to lineages, not literal trees. I quoted hadiths about Adam’s and Eve’s envy toward the Ahlulbayt, which Sharifi initially denied—then fell silent when confronted with evidence from Shia books. I asked: Would God banish His Prophet over a mere apple or tree?

3. Accusations of Sexual Vulgarity Regarding Jesus

Sharifi vulgarly attacked our understanding of purity and The Last Supper. I responded by highlighting contradictions in Shia traditions—such as kissing and licking shrine doors for purification—while attacking our teachings around purity. I cited the hadith of Umm Ayman. His crude retort: “Have you sucked your master’s genitals, Mr. Saghari?” I replied: “Have you practiced tafkhiz as per Khomeini’s fatwa with infant girls?” And I answered his question: No.

4. Drug and Alcohol Accusations

Sharifi criticised that we believe that certain drugs are halal. I clarified that the Qaim brings new knowledge that challenges tradition and is heavy upon the Arabs. I referenced the tradition stating, “Nothing remains between Arabs and Persians except the sword”—interpreted as symbolic of revolutionary new rulings. Once the Qaim’s infallibility is established, his teachings are binding.

5. Apostasy Allegations

Sharifi claimed we called the 313 messengers, including the Prophet, apostates.I corrected him: the tradition says they almost apostatized during severe trials. He was misrepresenting our beliefs.

6. Homosexuality and Repentance

Sharifi accused us of legalizing homosexuality and insulting prophets. I denied it outright. I stated: God’s religion is open to all who repent. How dare you restrict divine mercy?

7. The 24 Imams

He questioned our belief in 24 Imams.I explained that our belief is rooted in the Prophet’s will, which speaks of 12 Imams followed by 12 Mahdis—supported by many other authentic Shia narrations.

8.Sharifi's Confusion

I confronted Sharifi’s confusion around the presene of an Infallible Imam. I said: You claim to understand Imamah, but you deny its very essence. I follow Ahmad Al-Hassan and Aba Al-Sadiq—who came with the Prophet’s will, the divine banner, and divinely taught knowledge. These are not subjective claims; they are documented proofs. But you have no Imam. You cling to a patchwork of contradictory rulings from fallible scholars. You are drifting without divine guidance."

I cited narrations about the “scholars of misguidance” of the End Times—those who:

• Speak without knowledge.

• Sell rulings for worldly gain.

• Usurp divine titles like “Ayatollah” or “Wali al-Faqih.”

At the conclusion, I turned to the viewers:

"Will you follow these so-called scholars—those who have no Imam, no divine proof, and yet claim leadership over the Ummah? Or will you follow the man who came with the banner, the will, and the divine knowledge—exactly as foretold by the Ahlulbayt?"

The choice is yours: confusion or clarity, self-appointed authority or divine truth. I recognize the Imam of my time—Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan—and I follow his successor, Aba AlSadiq, the Riser from the family of Muhammad. Those who reject this Imam, by their own admission, “die the death of ignorance.” And ignorance is not a cloak anyone should wear proudly.

You can watch the full debate here: