Noor-e-Najaf (Research Scholar) and Dr. Muhammad Asim (Research Supervisor)

Khomeinism emerged as one of the most transformative political ideologies of the twentieth century, built upon the synthesis of Islamic theology and revolutionary politics. Rooted in Shia jurisprudence yet expressed through a populist revolutionary voice, it represented a moral, spiritual, and political awakening against colonial subjugation and material modernity. The speech “We Shall Confront the World with Our Ideology”, delivered in March 1980, stands as the clearest articulation of this ideological framework. It encapsulates three core dimensions of Khomeini’s political philosophy: theocratic governance under clerical leadership, rejection of ideological contamination from both Western capitalism and Eastern communism, and the universal mission of Islamic resistance. His discourse positioned the Islamic Revolution not as a domestic political transition but as a global declaration of independence from imperial structures. Khomeini’s rhetoric transformed religious language into a mechanism of political mobilisation, converting Quranic justice into a revolutionary grammar that inspired action across the Muslim world. Through this address, he presented Islam as a comprehensive system capable of challenging secular world orders. The emphasis on divine duty, moral responsibility, and social cohesion under clerical supervision formed the ideological infrastructure of the nascent Islamic Republic. Khomeini’s objective was not only to liberate Iran from the Shah but to reconstruct the Muslim identity as a force capable of resisting cultural and economic dependency.

The discourse is built upon a profound sense of divine mission that redefines the Iranian nation as the vanguard of global resistance. Khomeini’s use of theological syntax transforms the nation’s struggle into a sacred covenant with God. His address opens by acknowledging divine providence for the Revolution’s victory, immediately linking political transformation to spiritual obedience. By identifying the United States as “the world-devouring America” and communism as an “aggressive East,” Khomeini creates a binary opposition between the oppressed and the oppressors, situating Iran within the Quranic tradition of the mustazafin—the oppressed who shall inherit the earth. This language merges theological determinism with political activism, asserting that resistance is not a choice but a divine command. The speech also reveals a rhetorical precision: Khomeini consistently employs repetition and invocation of religious imagery to maintain spiritual intensity. The crowd’s responses of “God is great” reinforce this rhythm, transforming the speech into a participatory act of collective sanctification. The ideological strength of Khomeinism lies in its ability to merge divine authority with national identity, thereby creating a political theology of resistance.

Khomeini’s rejection of both Marxism and liberalism reflects his intent to construct Islam as an autonomous epistemology rather than a derivative ideology. The slogan “Neither West Nor East” becomes the axis of Khomeinist thought, symbolising epistemic independence from global power blocs. For Khomeini, Marxism’s materialism was incompatible with Islam’s spiritual vision, while Western liberalism’s secularism threatened the moral fabric of the community. By placing Islam as the sole authentic guide for governance and social order, he positioned the clergy as the legitimate interpreters of divine law. This clericalism, far from being a conservative retreat, was framed as a revolutionary necessity to protect Islam from intellectual dilution. Khomeini’s opposition to Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s proposal for an “Islamic Democratic Republic” was rooted in his conviction that democracy without divine guidance would replicate the moral decay of the West. His insistence that the Prophet had delegated leadership to the ulama was both theological and political, transforming the clerical class into the institutional guardian of revolutionary purity. This synthesis of faith and power established the framework of velayat-e faqih—the guardianship of the jurist—which remains the foundation of Iran’s political structure.

The speech also demonstrates Khomeini’s awareness of sociopolitical realities. His directives to the army, Revolutionary Guards, judiciary, media, and universities were not abstract moral appeals but operational commands to consolidate state control under Islamic guidance. He denounced disorder, indiscipline, and ideological deviation as threats to the Revolution’s moral legitimacy. His criticism of universities as breeding grounds for Westernised intellectuals reveals his belief that colonial domination operated through cultural and epistemological means. By calling for a purge of “professors who are in contact with the East or the West,” he sought to re-Islamise knowledge production and restore the intellectual sovereignty of the Muslim mind. This idea resonates with postcolonial theory, anticipating arguments later advanced by scholars such as Edward Said, who identified knowledge as a tool of domination. Khomeini’s reformation of universities, therefore, was not anti-intellectualism but a strategic decolonisation of thought. His rhetoric transforms cultural purification into an act of revolutionary renewal.

Khomeini’s appeal to the youth to take “the Quran in one hand and the weapon in the other” reflects the synthesis of faith and militancy that defines Khomeinism. The metaphor of the Quran and weapon symbolises the dual strategy of spiritual conviction and active defence. For him, revolution without piety would devolve into chaos, and faith without struggle would lead to submission. The youth were cast as both soldiers and saints, charged with defending Islam’s dignity against ideological corruption. This moral mobilisation extended beyond Iran’s borders, as he declared that Islam “does not regard various Islamic countries differently” and must support all oppressed peoples. In this sense, Khomeinism transformed Shia particularism into a universal revolutionary call. The concept of exporting the revolution was not expansionism but an assertion that Islamic ethics must confront global injustice. Khomeini’s framing of Palestine, Lebanon, and Afghanistan within the same moral geography positioned Iran as the nucleus of a transnational resistance against imperialism.

Discourse analysis of this speech reveals its unique structural pattern: a constant oscillation between divine revelation and pragmatic governance. Khomeini alternates between moral exhortation and policy directive, producing a rhythm that blurs the boundary between sermon and state order. His discourse functions as performative power, where speech becomes an act of governance itself. By declaring that “we shall confront the world with our ideology,” Khomeini articulates a vision of ideological warfare grounded not in weapons but in moral conviction. His invocation of divine authority transforms every political instruction into a sacred obligation. In linguistic terms, the speech employs a binary framework of purity versus corruption, faith versus deceit, Islam versus foreign influence. This moral polarisation provides the psychological structure of resistance that sustained Iran through years of war and sanctions. The strength of Khomeinism lies precisely in this ability to fuse metaphysical destiny with political realism.

Furthermore, Khomeini’s populism reflects a deliberate strategy to democratise the revolutionary spirit while maintaining clerical authority. His repeated address to “my dear people” and “my revolutionary children” constructs an intimate bond between the leader and the masses. This rhetorical intimacy, however, does not translate into egalitarianism; rather, it functions within a paternalistic framework where obedience is framed as loyalty to God. Khomeini’s discourse creates an emotional unity that transcends class, ethnicity, and education, allowing the Revolution to survive internal divisions. By elevating martyrdom, he transforms suffering into a collective moral currency, ensuring that endurance under hardship becomes a proof of faith. His closing prayers for the martyrs and the “injured and crippled of the revolution” reframe sacrifice as spiritual triumph, reinforcing the theological foundation of revolutionary perseverance.

Khomeinism thus represents a coherent system of political theology grounded in divine law, moral struggle, and cultural independence. It rejects secular materialism and ideological dependency while proposing a governance model rooted in ethical authority. The speech of March 1980 stands as the textual blueprint for this vision. It is both a manifesto and a moral proclamation, binding the revolutionary state to its metaphysical mission. Through this discourse, Khomeini redefined the relationship between religion and politics, replacing the Western dichotomy of church and state with a model of divine sovereignty exercised through juristic interpretation. His words continue to shape Iran’s strategic posture, its resistance to global power structures, and its internal moral economy.

In conclusion, Khomeinism is not simply an ideology but a moral civilisation project that seeks to reconstruct the human condition through divine justice. Its discourse, as evident in “We Shall Confront the World with Our Ideology,” fuses spirituality, governance, and resistance into a single framework of purpose. Khomeini’s political theology remains one of the most sustained challenges to Western secular universalism and continues to inspire movements that seek liberation from imperial domination. His insistence that victory belongs to the oppressed reflects both a Quranic truth and a revolutionary certainty. The speech thus stands as a testament to the enduring power of faith in shaping political destiny, proving that moral conviction, when articulated through disciplined language and visionary leadership, can outlast empires and redefine the architecture of world politics.