Iran as Islam’s Political Proof

Abdussamad Yahya Sufi

For decades, an assumption has colored global political perception: that Islam lacks the intellectual and institutional capacity to govern a modern society. According to this view, progress must pass through secularism, while religious governance is framed as failing or fated to fail. The Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979 discredits this assumption.

Unlike many revolutions of the twentieth century, Iran’s was not built on Marxism, liberal nationalism, or imported ideologies. It was plainly Islamic, led by the jurist Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. And founded on a theory of governance known as Wilāyat al-Faqīh (the guardianship of the Islamic jurist). Critics predicted its imminent failure. More than four decades later, the system not only survives but governs a complex, modern state under conditions that would have broken many others.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has faced one of the most severe sanctions regimes in modern history. It has faced diplomatic isolation, economic warfare, covert operations, and constant media hostility. Experts argue that such pressure inevitably leads to state collapse, popular revolt, or external subjugation. Iran has escaped all of these threats. Instead, it has preserved institutional continuity, safeguarded sovereignty, and developed indigenous capacities in science, defense, medicine, and education.

This resistance flows from a political system based on ideological legitimacy rather than dependency. Khomeini’s ideology interprets Islam not merely as a spiritual tradition but as a model for organizing society, law, and power. Governance cannot be morally neutral; every system is built on a set of values. Liberal democracy, socialism, and monarchy all encode moral assumptions. Islam, therefore, is not an exception. It is a viable alternative.

What the Iranian Revolution proved is that an Islamic system is possible. And possibility matters. For generations, Muslim societies were told, explicitly or implicitly, that they must abandon their religious foundations to enter modernity. Iran rejected this bargain. It chose an indigenous path, in its religious and cultural identity, and insisted on sovereignty over imperialism.

Equally important is Iran’s stance in international relations. Despite being framed as inherently aggressive, Iran has not engaged in wars of territorial expansion. Its military doctrine is fundamentally defensive, defined by historical invasion and external threats. Whether one agrees with all its policies or not, it is difficult to claim that Iran behaves more aggressively than many secular powers whose interventions are normalized and justified.

Critics point to internal dilemmas within Iran, including political restrictions, economic pressures, and social tensions, as evidence of the failure of Islamic governance. These problems are not unique to religious systems. Secular states around the world, including those lionised as models of democracy, grapple with inequality, repression, corruption, and abductions. No political system is deemed invalid because it faces trials; it is judged by whether it can survive them, adapt, and govern effectively.

By that standard, the Islamic Republic meets the test.

Perhaps the most substantive and momentous contribution of the Iranian Revolution is symbolic. It discredited the illusion that Islam is a “death religion” incapable of producing life, order, or progress. It proved that resistance to domination can coexist with scientific advancement, that faith can establish political structure, and that modernity does not belong exclusively to the West.

Iran is proof that survival and progress are possible even when the world predicted its fall.

The Iranian Revolution asks something both critical and decisive: to recognize that Islam like any other system is capable of governing modern life. On that point, history has already delivered its verdict.