Why did Khomeini fail to bring about an Islamic Revolution?

 

Adapted and translated from ‘Abaqaat Volume 3 – under publication

‘Allamah Khalid Mahmud rahimahullah

Since the political revolution in Iran and the transfer of power from a family to the people, and because most of the new members of the government were religious, this has been considered a religious revolution in some circles.

Khomeini's personality, the status of the religious leader of Qom, and the inclusion of the Wilayat al-Faqih in the country's constitution added more colour to the religious picture of this revolution. Now that Khomeini passed away on June 3 (1989). Some people truly believed that a preacher of the Islamic Revolution had passed away.

No one can escape death; whoever wears the garment of creation will have to drink the cup of death one day or another. A person should not be happy even at the death of an opponent because this is the door through which friends must also pass. The one who is born to die and the one who is built to fall, the one who comes to bloom and the one who comes to leave. Permanence and eternity belong only to Allah Ta’ala. All others are standing on the brink of death, and some have crossed this brink.

Upon the death of leaders, the world examines their works, actions, and motivations to see how far someone succeeded in their mission, and if they could not reach the desired shore, what were the reasons and factors? Did they not find the means, or did they lack breadth in their thinking, and if so, did they lack the courage to act? This is a constructive criticism so that future generations can avoid these mistakes.

The hardships that Khomeini endured at the hands of the former Shah of Iran and the determination with which he spent his days in exile in France are the best assets of his life. After coming to power as a religious leader, it was expected of him that instead of becoming a manifestation of anger and revenge within the country, he would not forget the forgiveness and generosity of Sayyiduna Ali al-Murtaza radiyallahu ‘anhu, the peace-loving thoughts and patience of Sayyiduna Hasan radiyallahu ‘anhu, and the circles of knowledge of Sayyiduna Zain al-Abidin rahimahullah, but according to him, he considered every opponent of his to be Shimar and Yazid and himself Husain.

The courts established on his throne of power always had two doors, one for the entry of the accused and the other for the exit of their bodies. And the world saw that Iran had become a place of political revenge in the same way that Ismail Safavi had made it a place of sectarian revenge in the 16th century AD, and the Sunni majority there had been transformed into a minority.

If Khomeini, after occupying a great country like Iran, had treated his political opponents according to the Sunnah and then expressed his determination to unite the entire Islamic world, and the world had seen how a religious scholar had succeeded in overcoming sectarian narrow-mindedness and uniting Iran and the Arab countries, today we would consider his passing a shock to the entire Islamic world.

Shia friends also had high hopes for him, which unfortunately could not be fulfilled. Many Shias were heard saying that Khomeini was the door to Imam Mahdi. Before him, Shias did not call any scholar, mujtahid, or Ayatollah ‘Imam’. Now Khomeini was called ‘Imam’ only in this sense that he was seen as the door to the Mahdi; now the Mahdi is about to appear, and Iran's religious revolution has paved the way for the Imam's arrival. Unfortunately, Khomeini passed away, and no alarm has been heard yet about the Mahdi's appearance.

As far as we can understand, Khomeini could not become a revolutionary figure of the entire Islamic world because he was not mentally ready to leave the narrow circle of Shi’ism. He did not have any program to end this hostility between Arabs and non-Arabs that has created a gap between Shi’ism and Sunnism for centuries.

It is no secret to scholars that Shi’ism has been a slave to Sasanian traditions from the very beginning. For this reason, accepting Arab leadership has been tantamount to rebelling against its entire past. Unfortunately, instead of reducing this gap, Khomeini fought such a long war with Iraq that his temperament made him the biggest obstacle in the way of Iran-Arab unity.

During this period, the political processions that Iranian pilgrims took out in the Haramayn Sharifayn violated the sanctity of the Hajj days, progressing from sloganeering and scuffles to killings and fighting. If it were not for such unforgettable tragedies in the record of Khomeini, his death today would truly have been the death of a scholar.

The Shia should not be offended by our opinion that Khomeini failed in his global mission and could not unite the Islamic world, because Khomeini himself has said the same thing in even harsher terms about Sayyiduna Muhammad Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

Khomeini, completely indifferent to the Hereafter and the Day of Judgment, had said:

"All the prophets who came had come to enforce justice. Their aim was to enforce justice throughout the world, but they did not succeed, even the last of the messengers (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) who came to reform humanity and to enforce justice.... they did not succeed in their time (Unity and Oneness in the Eyes of Imam Khomeini, page: 15, Publisher: Khana Farhang Jamhouri Islami Iran)"

If Rushdie had said the same thing, the world would have included this phrase among the blasphemous phrases due to which the entire Islamic world is currently in a state of rage and anger against Rushdie. Unfortunately, since Khomeini has the backing of a religious group and there is no religious group behind Rushdie that supports these superstitions, the former is being tolerated and processions are being taken out against the latter.

Consider Khomeini's language and words about the Sahabah radiyallahu ‘anhum:

"Abu Hurairah was a jurist, but God knows how many false rulings he fabricated to benefit Muawiyah and people like him (Wilayat al-Faqih by Ruhollah Khomeini, translated by Safdar Hussain Najafi, published by Shah Najaf Library, Lahore)"

Khomeini said this about the Sayyiduna Amir Muawiyah radiyallahu ‘anhu to whom Sayyiduna Hasan and Husain radiyallahu ‘anhuma pledged allegiance. If Khomeini had respected and honoured Sayyiduna Amir Muawiyah radiyallahu ‘anhu for the sake of these two, perhaps the page of history would have been different, and the world would have said that Khomeini had completely broken the religious and sectarian bonds for the sake of the wider interests of the Islamic world.

The international concept of Islam must be respected at all times. The religious leader of any country or sect has no right to claim the sanctity of prayer, fasting, and Hajj for himself. Khomeini had given Ali Khamenei the following concept of government, and the Islamic world could never agree on it:

"The government is a direct branch of the guardianship of the Messenger of Allah and is one of the fundamental and first commandments of religion. It has priority over all subsidiary commands, even over prayer, fasting and Hajj. It is permissible for the government to suspend the Masajid in times of need, and it is also permissible for it to completely demolish a Masjid. (Iran's official newspaper, Kayhan, 23 Jumada al-Awwal 1408 AH, issue: 82)"

These are the reasons why today, while Khomeini's death is considered a tragedy for Iran, it is not considered a breach in the Islamic world.

If Khomeini had all the means and resources available to him, he would have ended the sectarian bitterness of the Islamic world in the blink of an eye.

We are not disappointed with the blessings of Allah Ta’ala; Allah Ta’ala may grant success to another servant, and he will rise above sectarian prejudices and unite the world of Islam. And this is not difficult for Allah Ta’ala.