Throughout the modern history of the Islamic world, thinkers such as Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh raised the banner of Islamic unity. In their wake, movements promoting rapprochement and institutions such as the Dar al-Taqrib Bayn al-Madhahib al-Islamiyyah (the Center for the Rapprochement of Islamic Schools of Thought) emerged.
As a jurist, mystic, political theorist, and leader of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini (may God bless him) presented unity not as a superficial slogan, but as a strategic, identity-based, and civilizational necessity. In this interview with Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Mozaffari, various dimensions of this issue and the obstacles to its realization are examined.
Question: Why has unity not taken shape to the extent envisioned by Imam Khomeini?
Answer: This is one of the most fundamental questions in contemporary Shiite political thought. The intellectual foundations and practical conduct of Imam Khomeini were based on interaction, mutual understanding, and unity. The unity of seminaries and universities, as well as that of Shiites and Sunnis, were among the key pillars of his thought.
Imam Khomeini’s call for Shiite-Sunni unity never meant doctrinal homogenization or that Shiites should accept the theological principles of Sunnism. Similarly, his emphasis on unity between seminaries and universities did not mean that either institution should erase the identity of the other. What he had in mind was substantive engagement, strategic cooperation, and giving priority to the interests of the Muslim community over secondary disagreements.
Unfortunately, in practice, form has prevailed over substance. Numerous conferences, congresses, and publications have been organized and produced. While these are beneficial in themselves, they often lack strategic depth and institutional continuity. Imam Khomeini’s principles were profound and ambitious, and the gap between the current situation and that ideal remains considerable.
From the perspectives of political sociology and security studies, several structural factors have obstructed the realization of the unity envisioned by Imam Khomeini:
1. The politicization of unity: The intrusion of domestic and regional power struggles into the field of rapprochement has turned it into a tactical instrument.
2. The continued activities of divisive forces: Both foreign actors—including classical and neo-colonial powers—and domestic movements whose interests lie in preserving sectarian divisions have systematically contributed to reinforcing identity-based boundaries.
3. The dominance of identity-based discourse over interest-based discourse: While Imam Khomeini emphasized the concept of a “single Muslim community” (Ummah Wahidah), many political actions have remained confined to the framework of nation-states and geopolitical rivalries.
During periods when Imam Khomeini’s intellectual principles had a more prominent presence in official policies, the participation of scholars and some political figures from Islamic countries in unity-oriented conferences increased. At the same time, however, rival forces also became more active. Imam Khomeini’s unifying discourse itself, particularly during the first decades following the Revolution, prevented many divisions from escalating. To this day, it continues to serve as an intellectual point of reference in academic circles across the Islamic world.
Question: Given your regular participation in academic circles and international seminars, is there a positive attitude toward unity based on Imam Khomeini’s thought among international politicians and intellectuals?
Answer: A distinction must be made between intellectuals and politicians. Among the academic and intellectual elites of the Islamic world, and even in some Western circles, the unifying dimension of Imam Khomeini’s thought is viewed largely positively. His emphasis on the priority of the Muslim community over sectarian affiliation, as well as on joint resistance to domination, is discussed at academic conferences—including those held at Al-Azhar and academic institutions across the Arab world—as a model worthy of consideration.
At the political level, however, the picture is more complex.
Some leaders and political figures with anti-colonial and justice-oriented concerns have shown an interest in certain aspects of Imam Khomeini’s life and thought. In his speech at the University of Tehran, Nelson Mandela referred to Imam Khomeini as one of the figures who had inspired his own struggle and emphasized the connection between resistance and spirituality. Mahatma Gandhi, although Hindu rather than Muslim, also drew on models of ethical and spiritual resistance in his anti-colonial struggle. These models were later compared, in the discourse of some Third World leaders, with the experience of the Iranian Revolution.
Politicians who are more open-minded and conscious of their national responsibilities generally show greater interest in the unifying potential of Imam Khomeini’s thought. By contrast, groups whose interests are tied to the continuation of sectarian divisions tend to adopt either a hostile or an instrumental approach.
Question: Which foundations of Imam Khomeini’s thought on unity are most appealing to intellectuals?
Answer: Two main aspects have attracted the attention of academic elites more than others.
First, Imam Khomeini’s theoretical and practical mysticism. His profound perspective on Ibn Arabi and his reinterpretation of mysticism within the context of social and political responsibility have a particular appeal in academic circles and comparative studies of mysticism. Imam Khomeini’s mysticism is not one of withdrawal or isolation; rather, it fosters unity and a sense of responsibility.
Second, his intellectual and personal comprehensiveness. Imam Khomeini was simultaneously a jurist, a scholar of the principles of jurisprudence, a mystic, a philosopher, and a politician. This breadth means that his conception of unity was not merely a political slogan, but was grounded in a coherent system of knowledge. In academic circles, this rare combination of intellectual depth and political engagement is what attracts the greatest attention.
From a theoretical perspective, Imam Khomeini’s thought on unity can be analyzed within the framework of a “trans-sectarian civilizational identity”—an identity that preserves theological differences while prioritizing the shared interests of the Muslim community and resistance to subjugation. Realizing this model still requires moving beyond the politicization of unity, strengthening independent academic institutions, and redefining the relationship between power and knowledge.
* Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Mozaffari is a university professor, President of the ECO Cultural Institute, member of the Board of Trustees of the Institute for Culture, Art and Communications, advisor to the late Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council, advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and member of the Board of Trustees of the Iranology Foundation.