Zafar Bangash, Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, pays tribute to the greatest Muslim leader of the modern era, whom Dr Kalim Siddiqui called "the de facto khalifah of the contemporary Ummah".
 

The result of the Ummah's drift from the Prophetic model was seen in the stunning defeat of Muslim armies in the Middle East in June 1967 and in East Pakistan in December 1971. Muslims' illusions of nationalism lay shattered with the burnt-out shells of tanks in the Sinai peninsula and the paddy fields of what is today called Bangladesh. No matter what excuses are advanced for these disasters - the lack of weaponry or international support and so on - the fact remains that Muslim armies fighting under the banner of nationalism were not only defeated but humiliated. The Muslim world lay in disarray because it had rebelled against the commands of Allah.

It was in those dark days that the Islamic Revolution in Iran came like a flash of lightning on the world scene in 1978. The leadership of Imam Khomeini, a charismatic figure who emerged from the very roots of Islam, struck an instant chord with the Muslim masses worldwide. He had had virtually no contact with the west. In fact he spoke no western languages; Arabic and Persian were his languages of choice. He was very unlike other Muslim leaders of the twentieth century, who took pride in their closeness to the Ummah's greatest enemies. He could not have appeared at a more opportune time: the Ummah yearned for a break in the string of humiliations at the hands of the enemies of Islam, and exulted in the self-confidence and successes of the Muslims in Iran.

Imam Khomeini represented everything that the Muslim masses expect in their leaders: taqwa, modesty, humility, simplicity, courage, charisma, wisdom and firasah (insight) - qualities that do not come without a deep knowledge of Islam invested with profound spirituality. Imam Khomeini was not a political leader; his station was much higher. In the contemporary world, politics has become a dirty word; it is a game played by unscrupulous people for selfish ends. For the Imam, worldly power was not an end in itself but the means to a much higher purpose: to implement Allah's divine laws on earth, the very purpose for which man has been created, and "to enforce the common good and prohibit evil" (al-Qur'an 3:104). As the noble Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, has said, anyone given power and authority without seeking them will have Allah's support; those running after positions will be deprived of divine help. The Imam never sought any position; his authority was based on his profound understanding of Islam and the great esteem in which the Muslim masses, especially in Iran, held him.

In order to comprehend fully the magnitude of his contribution, two points need to be borne in mind. First, the Imam came from a tradition - the Shi'i branch of Islam - that had historically shunned worldly power, believing all political power to be illegitimate in the absence of the Twelfth Imam. Second, the Imam defeated a ruler - Reza Pahlavi, the western-created 'Shah of Iran' - whose regime was at the peak of its strength, and enjoyed the full and unlimited support of western powers. Unlike the regimes toppled by other revolutions of modern history, the shah had not been weakened by external defeat; in fact, on the eve of the Revolution, the shah's regime appeared frankly impregnable.

Neither of these two factors should be underestimated, as the experience of contemporary Islamic movements show in such places as Egypt, Pakistan and Algeria. To reverse the tide of history, especially one which has been legitimised by centuries of religious sanction, is a monumental task. When the Imam propounded his theory of vilayat-e faqih (the guardianship [ie. rule] of the faqih), it was not an entirely new concept in Shi'i theology. Nearly 150 years earlier, Shaykh Ahmed Naraqi (d.1829) had outlined a similar theory, but had stopped short of proposing that the fuqaha assume a direct role in the governance of society.

What was fresh about the Imam's formulation was the broad scope of authority he suggested for the vali-e faqih, including worldly authority in the absence of the Twelfth Imam. Such a formulation was bound to face immense opposition from Shi'i scholars. When the Imam first outlined his theory during exile in Najaf, Iraq, in the early seventies, many Shi'i ulama not only refused to endorse it but actively opposed it, arguing that it would undermine Shi'i political theory and theology that had been developed over centuries.

But one of the qualities of a great leader is that he carries with him a broad spectrum of opinion, inspiring others to believe in him. More importantly, he makes them believe in themselves in order to achieve goals that would otherwise appear quite beyond their reach. By putting his theory into historical context, the Imam made it relevant not only to the people of Iran but also to the global Ummah. This needs elaboration. A well-known hadith of the Prophet, upon whom be peace, narrates that a Muslim must at all times live with baya' (i.e., he must pledge allegiance to an Islamic leader) otherwise he dies a death of jahiliyyah. This has been generally understood to mean that a Muslim must either live in an Islamic State or strive to establish one.

With the abolition of the Uthmanniyyah khilafah in Turkey in March 1924, the Muslim Ummah found itself - for the first time in its history - without even a nominal leader. Soon thereafter, a number of movements emerged to struggle for the re-establishment of the khilafah. The Ikhwan al-Muslimoon in Egypt and the Jama'at-e Islami in Pakistan were the direct result of this approach. However one assesses their efforts, and the methods they used, there can be no doubting the depth of their yearning to re-establish the divinely-ordained system in this world. Indeed, the essence of the Imam's ijtihad on vilayat-e faqih was essentially similar to the traditional Sunni understanding of khilafah. The fact that many in the Sunni world failed to understand this was largely due to their traditional prejudices. The Imam's thought was a far greater revolution in Shi'i thought and, understandably and inevitably, many traditional ulama were reluctant to move forward so fast.

However, while there was opposition to his ijtihad from some ulama both inside and outside Iran, the Imam's immense prestige was able to override such objections. Since his death in June 1989, these objections have become more vocal, indicating that people do not easily give up long-held positions even when historical evidence shows them to be untenable. The overriding weight of opinion is still in his favour, and this is likely to become established as the new orthodoxy eventually.

The Imam's opposition to the Shah was based on the latter's political illegitimacy. The Imam denounced him relentlessly as an agent of America and the zionist state. Even though the shah appeared powerful and his dreaded secret service, SAVAK, was much feared, the Imam felt that it was his duty to expose both the fundamental illegitimacy of the regime, and the criminal brutality of its policies, and so that was what he insisted on doing. Such courage is a distinguishing feature of a great leader.

While the people of Iran could easily identify with the Imam's condemnation of the US, which had turned Iran into a virtual colony, the zionist state - the usurper of al-Quds and Palestine - appeared distant. On the face of it, Iran had no particular quarrel with the zionists; they had no common borders and the shah's regime, the champion of Persian nationalism, did brisk business with Israel. Arab nationalism, meanwhile, viewed Persian nationalism as a rival.

The Imam transcended all national boundaries and spoke as a truly Islamic leader on behalf of the Ummah. Palestine and al-Quds are of concern to the entire Ummah and cannot be left either to the Arabs or to the Palestinians, some of whom have attempted to nationalise the issue. By presenting the issue in Islamic terms, the Imam reflected the deepest sentiments of the Ummah. He came to represent not just the people of Iran but all Muslims. And this was recognised instinctively by Muslims around the world, who have loved and revered him despite all the efforts of his enemies to disparage and malign him.

In the Imam, the Ummah recognised a truly Islamic personality. He appeared to have stepped from the pages of the history books which narrate the lives of the khulafa ar-rashidoon and other companions in glowing terms, with their piety, modesty and simplicity as well as courage and charisma. The Imam appeared as a mujaddid (one who renews the deen of Islam at the beginning of each century), his particular role being to revitalise Islam as an instrument of social justice and collective organization when it appeared to have been reduced to a 'mere' religion. But it would be an inaccurate reflection of reality if one were to limit his role to the sphere of politics; the Imam did not leave any social or cultural aspect unattended, since all are part of the totality of Islam.

Take the case of women; today they play a major role in Islamic Iran. University enrolment for women has gone up tremendously. Some university faculties - such as medicine and education - have more female than male students. The reality of Islamic Iran is very different from the negative image presented by the hostile media of the western world, which automatically assumes that a modestly-dressed woman cannot be free to pursue her proper role in society. The Imam laid great emphasis on the involvement of women in Iran's revolutionary struggle. The tens of thousands of Muslim women who participated in the revolutionary struggle and millions more who have since prospered in all walks of life testify that Islamic Iran is marching towards realising the true potential of all its people.

The Imam also demolished the myth of invincibility of the so-called superpowers - the erstwhile Soviet Union and the US. The latter had come to assume that it could do anything it wanted in the world. In one of his most memorable statements, the Imam declared in early 1980: "America cannot do anything." This has been proved repeatedly even though at the time America, which claims to be the leader of the 'civilised' world, threatened to bomb Iran 'into the Stone Age', as if bombing and destroying another country is the quintessential achievement of a great power. Today, the challenge mounted by Islamic activists worldwide against zionist and US state terrorism is a direct reflection of the bold and forthright stand taken by the Imam in defence of the oppressed.

It is almost 12 years now since the Imam passed away. He has left an indelible imprint on history. The world will never be the same again and, although Muslims may not yet have achieved all their objectives, we are now more confident that the western-backed regimes in the Muslim world can be removed by revolutionary struggle, and that Islam is as relevant today as it was 1400 years ago. Numerous Muslim scholars and leaders have asserted these truths during our years of decline, and made valiant attempts to demonstrate them against all odds. Imam Khomeini's example is likely to prove far more durable, insha'Allah.