Hawzah News Agency- Hojatoleslam Mehdi Farmanian, faculty member and head of the Faculty of Islamic Denominations at the University of Religions and Denominations in Qom, made the remarks during an academic session titled "The Approach of Islamic Intellectual Currents Toward the Third Imposed War." The event, organized by the Imam Reza International Research Institute, brought together professors and researchers at Al-Mustafa International University's Khorasan branch.
Congratulating attendees on the joyous occasion of Eid al-Ghadir and the Day of Mubahala, Farmanian stated that the events triggered by the outbreak of the Third Imposed War and the martyrdom of a group of Iranian commanders and officials gave rise to varied stances among Islamic intellectual currents—an analysis of which could prove vital in formulating the Islamic Republic's future strategies.
Distinguishing Muslim Public Opinion from Intellectual Currents
The dean stressed the critical distinction between the general Muslim populace and organized intellectual movements. "According to available statistics and surveys, over 80 percent of the world's Muslims expressed sympathy and solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran during this war, even in countries whose governments sided with the United States," Farmanian noted.
He added that in certain nations in the eastern Islamic world—including Pakistan, India, and Indonesia—popular support for Iran exceeded 90 percent. Similarly, in North African countries, despite extensive anti-Iran and anti-Shia propaganda, public support for Iran rose throughout the conflict, in some cases surpassing 60 to 70 percent.
Farmanian emphasized, "On the whole, the people of the Islamic world stood with the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, many intellectual currents and religious and political elites acted contrary to public opinion."
Mixed Record of Traditional and Sufi Currents
Breaking down the spectrum of Islamic currents, the scholar first addressed traditional Islam. He noted that the majority of traditional Islamic seminaries fell within this category, with their positions largely influenced by their respective governments' policies.
"In countries where governments maintained a positive approach toward the Islamic Republic—such as Russia, Turkey, and select others—traditional scholars and muftis adopted supportive stances," Farmanian said. "By contrast, institutions like Egypt's Al-Azhar and the Muslim Council of Elders, influenced by certain Arab governments, not only failed to condemn American and Israeli aggression, but in some cases criticized the Islamic Republic's retaliatory operations against US military bases in the region."
Turning to Sufi currents, Farmanian described their performance as one of the major disappointments of this period. "Despite extensive engagement with these groups over the years, many of them either remained silent or adopted negative stances toward the Islamic Republic," he said, noting that even some well-known Sufi figures refrained from condemning the aggression against a Muslim nation and instead adopted positions against Iran.
Salafist Hostility, Sunni Iraqi Solidarity
On the Salafist current, Farmanian stated that virtually all Salafist groups across Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Indonesia adopted adversarial positions against the Islamic Republic. "Barring a handful of figures with differing views, the Salafist current was one of the principal opponents of Iran in this war," he asserted.
A positive development, however, was the widespread solidarity expressed by Iraqi Sunnis. "Despite a history of past differences and clashes, many Iraqi Sunni personalities and movements backed Iran at this juncture," Farmanian pointed out, adding that shared regional developments and common threats can pave the way for greater rapprochement among diverse Islamic currents.
Political Islam: Mixed Results
Addressing political Islam, the scholar said the Muslim Brotherhood, the most significant Sunni political Islam movement, failed to meet expectations. "Statements issued by the Muslim Brotherhood were weaker than anticipated, and many Brotherhood branches in various countries either remained silent or adopted cautious stances."
In contrast, Farmanian highlighted Hizb ut-Tahrir's stance as noteworthy. "This group, which had not previously held positive views of the Islamic Republic, this time supported the principle of defending a Muslim country and adopted acceptable positions."
Pakistan and Afghanistan: Strong Pillars of Support
Farmanian pointed to Pakistan as a nation where significant backing for Iran emerged both at the popular level and among intellectual currents. "Even certain Deobandi groups, from which support was not expected, adopted positive stances," he added.
Regarding Afghanistan, the scholar noted that the Taliban and senior officials of the Afghan government took positions "beyond expectations," condemning US and Israeli aggression. "This indicates that the capacity for dialogue and engagement with the Taliban is greater than some may assume."
Secular and Reformist Currents: Untapped Potential
Contrary to predictions, secular Islamic currents neither backed the US and Israel nor adopted positions against the Islamic Republic, instead largely choosing silence. Farmanian described this as a new capacity for engagement within the Islamic world, adding, "This experience showed that on certain overarching issues facing the Muslim world, the potential of secular currents can also be leveraged."
The dean further noted that most religious intellectuals across the Muslim world either supported Iran or adopted aligned stances, with a review of over 1,700 issued statements confirming the religious reformist current as a key backer of Iran in this war.
Unprecedented Shia Convergence
Farmanian described the rare convergence among diverse Shia denominations as the war's most significant achievement. "Nearly all Shia factions—including Zaydis, Ismailis, Shaykhis, Alawites, and even some currents critical of the Islamic Republic—stood alongside Iran," he said.
This solidarity, he argued, revealed that various Shia currents view Iran's existence and security as inextricably tied to the fate of Shiism as a whole when it comes to vital and existential matters.
Call for Strategic Reassessment
In his concluding remarks, the Iranian scholar stressed that the results of this war have upended many pre-existing assumptions about Islamic intellectual currents.
"We must reassess our strategies for engaging with various currents in the Islamic world, while simultaneously increasing the level of convergence and interaction among different Shia factions," Farmanian asserted. "The experience of the Third Imposed War demonstrated that certain currents from which support was expected performed poorly, while others, thought to be distant from the Islamic Republic, stood by Iran at critical moments. Therefore, a reassessment of the Islamic Republic's policies and intellectual and religious relations with the Islamic world is a strategic necessity."
Your Comment