Khomeini, the Revolution and Sunni criticism

adapted from al-Istiqāmah – a bi monthly journal (est. 1997) by Mawlānā Muḥammad Ṭāhā Karān rahimahu Llah.

Question

There are many ‘Ulama’ who criticise Imam Khomeini and attempt to turn Sunni opinion against him and the Revolution by constantly harping upon the fact that he was a Shia and the Revolution a Shia Revolution. However, such people need only look at the personality of the Imam and the achievements of the Revolution to realise that their denunciation is totally unfounded. The austerity, humility and piety of the Imam was of a calibre rarely found in the history of mankind and is most certainly unheard of in today’s Sunni ‘Ulama’ and heads of state. The sublimity of his character and the awe with which he inspired all who came into his presence, were such that even hostile Western journalists were forced to remark upon it. The Islamic Revolution has provided the contemporary world with the only living example of an Islamic state and has given every Muslim something to be proud of—an area in which Sunni countries have miserably failed the Muslims. In fact, the governments of most Sunni countries give us more than enough reason to hang our heads in shame. Is it then not better to desist from throwing stones when we ourselves live in glass houses? Sunni ‘Ulama’ should learn from the example of Imam Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution, rather than denounce it.

Answer

I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution. That Ayatollah Khomeini possessed the austerity and humility you speak of and that Iran portrays a picture of Islam that many people feel proud to be associated with, is indubitable.

What I do find questionable is whether those specific virtues in a leader, or that particular image portrayed by a state can, or should, be taken as concrete evidence of the fact that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the dogmatic background of the leader himself or the state he reigns over. Conversely, I find it equally unacceptable that the lack of such qualities and image in other leaders and countries could be taken to constitute proof that the creed to which they subscribe is somehow or the other at fault.

People who pose this type of question suffer from two things: one, a tendency to oversimplify the issue, and two, the inability to see beyond the present. If you understand the gravity of the situation as the ‘Ulama’ see it and if you are prepared to widen your scope to include the historical perspectives, I am about to relate to you, you will hopefully comprehend that their criticism—or denunciation, if you wish—of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution does not spring from spiteful motives, nor is it born from a desire to keep Muslims disunited.

We all know for a fact that the state that was established in Iran after the Revolution succeeded in 1979 was by no means the first truly Islamic state in the history of Islam. That honour goes to the State of Madinah Munawwarah, established by the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Upon his departure from this world, that state continued to exist under the leadership of the Rightly Guided Khulafa’. At least, that is what we the Ahlus Sunnah believe. The Shia insist that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum were usurpers, who illegitimately and in direct contravention of the order of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, appropriated the Caliphate. Shi’ite theology goes so far as to brand them, as well the rest of the Sahabah who pledged allegiance to them, as kafir. But that is not our immediate concern. What I want to do is to take the attitude of the Shia towards the Caliphate of one of them, namely ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as an example of the inconsistency you, and all others who demand that we judge Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution in the light of the qualities of the founder and the image of the state, are guilty of.

We know, or rather, the world knows, what a just and Allah-fearing ruler Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was. Forget Muslims, even Westerners have paid tribute to the man about whom the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Had there been a prophet after me it would have been ‘Umar.”[1] Even in a purely Shia source like Nahj al Balaghah, the compilation of the words of Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu by the Shia scholar and poet Sayed Radi, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is described in the most eloquent language as having “straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned mischief and established the Sunnah. He departed from this world in untarnished clothing and little shortcomings. He achieved the good (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered Allah’s obedience and feared Him as He deserved.”[2] (Unfortunately, the compiler’s Shia proclivities led him to substitute ‘Umar’s name with the word fulan, meaning so-and-so. Shia commentators of Nahj al Balaghah, like Ibn Abi al Hadid and ‘Allamah Maytham al Bahrani, were honest enough to point out that the person intended is ‘Umar.)

The justice of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was proverbial. The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam remarked that amongst his companions ‘Umar was “the most resolute in upholding the command of Allah”.[3] His spartan way of life eclipses the austerity of the greatest ascetics in the entire history of Islam, for while they in any case possessed practically nothing of this world, he was the ruler of the greatest empire of his day.[4] To him goes the credit of conquering for Islam the lands of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt and North Africa. His overriding concern for the well-being of each and every citizen in this vast empire, so picturesquely portrayed in the story of the destitute widow and her hungry children (and so many other similar stories), and the rugged simplicity of this ruler of an empire sleeping peacefully in the shade of a tree that made the envoy of Byzantium remark, “You are just, therefore you are safe, and that is why you can sleep so peacefully,” will always be a source of pride to Muslims.

Not all Muslims, however. To the Shia ‘Umar ibn al Khattab will always remain the archetypal Taghut (evil tyrant) mentioned by Allah in the Qur’an. To them he will never be anything but the usurper of the rights of the Ahlul Bayt, the killer of Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha unborn child, the origin, cause and root of all injustice and deviation in this Ummah, and therefore the deserving recipient of the punishment for all deeds of injustice perpetrated. The hatred they feel for ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu knows no limits.

In their Hadith literature, the curses of Allah, the Angels and all humanity are imprecated on him.[5] Their liturgical literature contain special supplications whereby they invoke Allah’s curses upon ‘Umar and his predecessor Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.[6] The 9th of Rabi’ al Awwal, being supposedly the day on which ‘Umar met his death at the hand of a Persian assassin, was celebrated by the Shia as a day of feasting and rejoicing, called ‘Id Baba Shuja’ al Din, since it “reminds them of the end of the leader of those who perpetrated cruelties against the Ahlul Bayt and they celebrate it with thanksgiving and charitable acts”.[7] Briefly put, to the Shia ‘Umar ibn al Khattab was a munafiq, the charges against whom “would fill a huge volume,”[8] and about whom a respected Shia scholar writes, “These men, we deem it a means of gaining nearness to Allah to hate them and curse them and those who love and revere them.”[9]

Now, if the justice, frugality, piety and universally recognised statesmanship of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, combined with the achievements of his reign (more territorial gains were made in the time of ‘Umar than during any other period) could not convince the Shia to be at least a bit more civil to him, why do you insist that the ‘Ulama’ of the Ahlus Sunnah must appreciate Khomeini and the Revolution for exactly those reasons? After all, the Shia themselves have shown that such factors cannot be taken as criteria for truth.

Lest you misunderstand, this is not a “tit-for tat” issue. It is an issue of consistency. Just as the Shia in their detraction of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu—to the point of declaring him a kafir and a munafiq—are merely being consistent with their own theology and with their particular perspective of history, so too, when the ‘Ulama’ of the Ahlus Sunnah level criticism against Khomeini, the Shi’ ah and the Iranian Revolution, such criticism is born not from malice or spite and most definitely not from a mercenary obligation towards the powers that be, but from something much, much more sacred. It is born from their faith, their ‘aqidah, and their solemn commitment to preserve and protect it.

We do not believe that differences between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia are as trivial as the politically charged atmosphere of the Revolutionary scene in Iran would try to make it appear. We feel that we have every reason to believe that the facade of Sunni-Shia unity conceals a deeper agenda of the Ayatollahs and the Hujjat al Islams of Qom and Najaf. And it is precisely because of this conviction that we refuse to stop our criticism, not of political progressiveness or of the Revolutionary ideal, but of Shi’ism, its agencies and its propagators.

[1] Jami’ al Tirmidhi, Hadith: 3687; al Mustadrak, 3/85, al Hakim and al Dhahabi both grade it sahih (authentic).

[2] Nahj al Balaghah, 2/484, W.O.F.I.S, Tehran, 1980.

[3] Jami’ al Tirmidhi, Hadith: 3793, al Tirmidhi classifies it as sahih.

[4] Molana Muhammad Manzoor No’mani mentions in a footnote to his book Khomeini, Iranian Revolution and the Shi’ite Faith, 29, that Ghandi advised ministers in the Indian government to keep before them the examples of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and to strive to live up to the ideal set by them. He further mentions that in the whole of history he could not find any other instance of a ruler having governed like an ascetic and in a genuine spirit of self-denial like the two Caliphs.

[5] Al Kafi, Rawdat al Kafi, 8/168, Dar al Adwa’, Beirut, 1992.

[6] See the supplication entitled Du’a’ Sanamay Quraysh (the Prayer of the Two Idols of Quraysh) in the Shia prayer-book Miftah al Jinan by Asad Allah al Tahrani al Ha’iri published in Manama, Bahrain. Dr. Sa’di al Hashimi, in his study al Ruwat Alladhina Ta’aththaru bi Ibn Saba’ (1992) mentions six different sources for this supplication, along with the names of ten commentaries on it by various Shia authors who lived from the 7^th/13^th to the 13^th/19^th century, all drawn from the major Shia bibliographical lexicon of this century, al Dhari’ah by Shia apologists like Lutf Allah al Safi, in his rejoinder to Muhibb al Din al Khatib’s booklet al Khutut al ‘Aridah, feign ignorance of the book Miftah al Jinan and deny its existence.

[7] Hakim Mirza Muhammad Kamil (died 1235/1819-20): Nuzha-e Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (refutation of Tuhfa-e Ithna ‘Ashariyyah), cited in S.A.A.Rizvi: Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz: Puritanism, Sectarian Polemics and Jihad, 412 (Canberra 1982).

[8] Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi: Haqq al Yaqin, cited in S.A.A.Rizvi: Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, 427, from Tashyid aI-Mata’in by ‘Allamah Muhammad Quli of Lucknow.

[9] Wusul al Akhyar ila Usul al Akhbar, 164 (Maktabah al Khayyam, Qom 1401 AH/1981 CE). The author of this book is Husayn ibn ‘Abdus Samad al ‘Amili, the father of Sheikh Baha’ al Din al ‘Amili, better known as al Sheikh al Baha’i, one of the most eminent immigrant ‘Ulama’ of the Safavid period in Iran. This book is one of the earliest Shia expositions of Hadith methodology.