Chapter 5

Islamic Revolution in Comparison with the French and Russian Revolution^[60]

In the beginning of this chapter it is pertinent to mention that the
reason for the selection of the French and Russian revolutions was that each of
these revolutions were a manifestation of the dominant ideologies and cultures
in the political, intellectual permutation of the contemporary world and
without any doubt, they have left profound impacts on the social, political,
and economic developments of the world during the past two centuries and other
revolutions, except the Islamic Revolution, have been more or less inspired by
the ideas and experiences of these two revolutions.

When the French Revolution achieved victory in 1789, it heralded a new
era of liberation and freedom: liberation from the pressures of the dictatorial
governments, liberation from exploitation and class advantages, liberation from
the bondage of suppression and pressure of the church, and freedom for the
individuals to express their thoughts and demands. Hence the slogans of the
French Revolution were liberty, equality and fraternity. When the Russian
Revolution achieved victory, it heralded and laid emphasis on the establishment
of social justice and elimination of class gaps through eradication of economic
advantages and class exploitation. But, contrary to the French Revolution,
which emphasized on the separation of religion from politics (separation of
church and state), and contrary to the Russian Revolution, which considered
religion the opium of the masses, the Islamic Revolution of Iran besides
congruence with some objectives of the French and Russian revolutions, had an
outstanding distinction, that is, it was formed on the basis of religious ideas
and ideals of the citizens. Not only it heralded the governance of the
disinherited over the arrogant, but also it gave the glad tiding of felicity in
the hereafter to its advocates and the believers [in Islam]. This is why it
found a special place among the sociopolitical revolutions of the world,
opening a new chapter in the history of mankind. As a result this revolution
spread very quickly and became popular among the oppressed Muslims as well as
other oppressed nations of the Third World and introduced a new path for
liberation from the bondage of great exploitative powers of the world. Although
a short time has passed since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, it has
created such astonishments that, according to Dillip Hiro, no country had
created during the past sixty years.^[61]

With regard to the classification of the revolutions, the French,
Russian and Islamic revolutions are among the social-political revolutions. The
main difference between these three revolutions stems from their ideologies.
This issue will be discussed in details below, but briefly, it may be mentioned
that the French Revolution was a liberal bourgeois revolution, the Russian
Revolution was a socialist, anti-despotic one and the Iranian Revolution was a
cultural-religious, anti-arrogance revolution.

With regard to their economic aspects, while the French and Russian
governments were in their worst conditions and were virtually bankrupt, the
Iranian government, because of a sudden, unforeseen increase in the oil prices,
was in the most desirable condition in its history from financial, economic
(foreign reserves) points of view.

From military point of view, due to intermittent defeats in protracted
wars, the French and Russian governments were in a weak, insecure position and
their armies not only did not extend support to the political system, but
showed inclination towards the revolutionaries and some of them even joined the
latter. In contrast, the Iranian army was in its best position, enjoying
sophisticated equipment and trained personnel who, except in few cases,
remained royal to the regime up to the last moments of its life and did not
even spare any efforts to suppress the revolutionaries.

With regard to international support, the French and Russian
governments were in a good position and most of the European governments were
not in good in terms with them or even were hostile to them before the
revolution and hence in some cases they supported the revolutionaries. Given
the end of the Cold War era, the prevailing bipolar world order, and the
dtente and peaceful coexistence in international relations, the Shah's regime
and his government enjoyed full support of the two superpowers of the time just
up to the last moments before its collapse and in contrast the Iranian
revolutionaries did not enjoy any international support.

From the viewpoint of political deliberation and management of the
affairs, due to dictatorial rules in France and Russia, the inefficiency of the
kings and influence of incompetent figures in the court, the kings could not
recognize their own interests and failed to establish a suitable, powerful
management system to preserve the stability and position of the ruling system.
In Iran, the Shah's regime was 38 years old and had put tumultuous periods
behind. Therefore it had reached the stage of self-confidence and absolute
rule, enjoying experienced advisors for domestic and foreign affairs as well as
a strong, coarse secret police, the SAVAK (State Organization for Intelligence
and Security), that was capable of
preserving and perpetuating the power of the regime.

Theda Skocpol, in a comparative study of the French, Russian and
Chinese revolutions, concludes that France, Russia and China had established
empires before the revolution which had the capability of preserving the ruling
system against the probable uprising of the lower classes (various strata of
the people). Therefore, before the social revolution had taken shape, the
military and executive powers of these governments should have collapsed. The
victory of the French Revolution in 1789, the Russian in 1917, and the Chinese
in 1948 was not due to the conscious, goal-oriented acts of the revolutionaries
or powerful political groups during the former regimes. Rather, revolutionary,
political crises emerged due to the chaos overcoming the administrative and
military systems at a time when the imperial governments were under various
pressures such as vigorous military competition and foreign influence,
rendering the regimes vulnerable towards these revolutionary crises. In fact
the existing structures make it impossible for them to tolerate military,
international pressures they face.^[62]

It was due to these weaknesses that in the French Revolution, the
ruling system not because of the opposition of the popular forces, rather due
to its helplessness in solving economic, political, and social problems of the
country, formed the Third Estate^[63] and
submitted to it. It was then that the popular movements and configuration of
social groups were formed, giving an impetus to the pace of revolution. Likewise,
although opposition forces were active in the course of the Russian Revolution,
and various political groupings and parties with different ideals and
objectives were present, not only they did not play any role in the collapse of
the Romanov dynasty, but they did not even imagine that the empire system would
collapse so easily. Of course, despite the pressures and feebleness, the tsar
did not voluntarily surrender to the nation, rather it surrendered and melted
like a snow mountain in the face of the first wave of popular movement and
uprising, stemming from the economic crisis and explosion, which manifested in
the form of demonstrations and strikes in the factories and industries. While
the Islamic Revolution achieved victory when the imperial system was at the
peak of its power, stability and firmness and resisted the opposition to the
last speck of its ability. Hence in order to bring the regime to its knees,
social groups had to mobilize all their forces and make lot of sacrifices in an
organized plan.

Hence Skocpol confirms that the French and Russian revolutions emerged;
they were not made, but the Islamic Revolution of Iran did not emerge; it was
made on the basis of the prevailing conditions it was not made easily, it was
made with lot of difficulties by mobilization of all potentials from across the
country, with the participation of all social strata and social classes, with a
strong leadership, payment of a heavy cost, and sacrificing hundreds of
thousands of human beings who supported the revolution. This was why the
Islamic Revolution astonished each and everybody. Skocpol writes: the fall of
the Shah's regime, the beginning of the revolutionary movement of Iran between
1977 and 1970, was a sudden surprise to foreign observers, including the
friends of the Shah, the journalists, political and social scientists as well
as those experts of revolution, like me, who observed the unfolding of the
developments with astonishment. Above all, the Iranian revolution was a
phenomenon whose trend was quite contrary to the norms and rules. The Iranian
revolution is certainly a social revolution. Nevertheless, the process of
revolution, particularly the events which led to the downfall of the Shah, put
the reasons Skocpol enumerates for the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions
into question.

The Iranian revolution was very popular and changed the fundamental
relations and the cultural, social and economic foundations in a manner that
made it a true example of great social-historical revolution of the world.^[64] The
Islamic Revolution did not follow the programs of the French democratic
revolution or those of Russian socialist revolution, rather its aim was the
establishment of a firm, modern society on the basis of the dynamic,
constructive Islamic school of thought and concomitant with the astonishing
scientific, technical developments and progresses of the twentieth century.

The victory or emergence of popular, revolutionary movements is subject
to the weakness of tyrannical ruling systems. Indeed, from historical point of
view popular uprisings have not been able to overthrow the governments
spontaneously. In fact, it is the foreign military pressure along with
political defections and confrontations between the dominant classes and the
government that weaken the ruling system, paving the way for revolutionary
movements and rebellions. Skocpol maintains that social revolutions have not
been created by revolutionary movements in which an ideological leader has
moved the masses and gained their support in order to overthrow the ruling
regimes. Clearly, the leaders of revolutions were often either absent before
the collapse of the ruling regime or had a marginal presence from political
point of view.

The Iranian revolution did not come spontaneously. She maintains that
the Iranian revolution was made in an integrated manner due to a firm
determination and decision, particularly in the early stages, which led to the
collapse of the Shah's regime. She also believes that there are grave
differences between the reasons for the occurrence of the Islamic Revolution
and those of the French and Russian revolutions.

On the basis of what has been said above, one may conclude that the
sociopolitical conditions in Iran, contrary to those of France and Russia, were
the most unsuitable for dealing a blow on the Shah's regime and overthrowing
it. The regime collapsed at a time when its collapse was not expected; on the
contrary, its collapse astonished and amazed almost all analysts as if a
miracle had been worked. For instance, the studies of the DIA and CIA just four
months before the collapse of the Shah had concluded that Iran was neither
under the revolutionary conditions nor in the pre-revolutionary conditions and
that the Shah's regime would continue to rule for another ten years.

In the second chapter the three pillars of the revolutions, that is,
people, leadership, and ideology were enumerated. Here each of these pillars in
the French, Russian and Iranian revolutions is discussed. The degree of
people's participation in the victory of the French Revolution was confined to
only one percent of the total population who did not cooperate with the ruling
system. In fact, the nobility constituted the main opposition class who were
considered the active region of the revolution in Paris. Hence, the degree of
people's participation in the overthrow of the tyrannical regime was very low
and the regime surrendered due to its weaknesses.

In the Russian revolution, a limited number of workers contributed to
the collapse of the regime through their strikes in the factories. The workers
and soldiers constituted the main revolutionary class and the revolutionary
active region was limited to Petersburg and Moscow. In fact, the very workers
of the factories of Petersburg and soldiers of the garrison of this city rioted
and prepared the grounds for the collapse of the Romanov dynasty.

In the course of the Islamic Revolution, except for a small minority of
the population, large chunk of the army which was affiliated to the regime,
people from different walks of life, all social groups across the country,
workers, government employees, peasants, guilds, etc. from rural and urban
areas all paralyzed the economy of the country and bare-handedly stood against
the armed-to-the-teeth regime to overthrow it.

Although after the collapse of the dictatorial regime in France and
Russia, the grounds were prepared for the spread of political awareness and
people's participation, later studies show that due to the disinclination of
the post-revolution ruling systems, political participation of the masses
gradually declined. The history and statistics of the people's participation in
the post-revolution elections in these two countries support this idea.^[65] In
contrast, in Iran the masses participated in the frequent post-revolution
elections and even in the critical conditions such as the bombardments of the
cities none of the elections were postponed or cancelled in the Islamic
Republic of Iran. The people's turnout in these elections is outstanding and astonishing.
Above all, people's regular participation in the demonstrations and rallies
held on the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution is a sign of
people's awakening as well as the support of the masses of their revolution.
Another example of their support of the revolution is the participation of ten
million Iranians in the funeral ceremonies of the founder of the Islamic
Republic, showing their allegiance and loyalty to the principles and ideals of
the revolution.

With regard to the second pillar of the revolution, that is, the
leadership, during the French and Russian revolutions, before the collapse of
the imperial regimes the opposition did not have an outstanding leader who
could be accepted by all social groups. During the first decade after the
revolution too, several leaders, with sharp differences of opinion, came to the
stage, who failed to bring about peace and stability to the chaotic, disorderly
society. This failure finally led to the establishment of a ruthless, callous
dictatorship. All of them were killed in France. In Russia, we do not come
across the name of any leader during the collapse of the Romanov dynasty in
February 1917. In October 1917, we come across the names of Vladimir Ilich
Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, and Nikolay Ivanovich Bukharin, among whom
Lenin died a natural death but others were killed by Stalin. In Iran from the
early days of the commencement of the Islamic movement in 1963 until the
victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the revolutionaries enjoyed the
powerful, insightful leadership of Imam Khomeini who enjoyed religious,
political and social legitimacy, and ruled over the hearts of millions of
citizens who were found of the Islamic government, which was one of the secrets
of the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

In the French and Russian revolutions we do not come across an
outstanding figure who enjoyed all leadership characteristics, qualified from
ideological point of view with regard to his ability to command the revolution
and reconstruction after revolution as well as enjoying the talent and
leadership power of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution.

In the French Revolution such figures as
Maximilien-Francois-Marie-Isidore de Robespierre, Doc, and Orleans were the
outstanding ones. None of them led the revolution during its course in a
comprehensive manner. Lenin is one of the outstanding figures of the Russian
Revolution; due to his talents and advantages he played a crucial, pivotal role
in the victory of what has been known as
the October Revolution, but he did not play any role in the downfall of the
Romanov regime in the February of the same year. In sum, we do not come across
an ideologue and a commander of the revolution in the Russian and French
revolutions. They were figures who really seized the opportunity after the
collapse of the regimes and influenced the ensuing developments.

The third pillar of the revolution, as mentioned earlier, is the
element of ideology. In a comparative study of this element in the three
revolutions under study, one may say briefly: liberalism was the ideology of
the French Revolution. Its main features included individualism, individual
freedoms, protection of the private sector and materialism. This ideology did
not play any role in the progress of the French Revolution of 1789, but played
a crucial role in the formation of the post-revolution era. Another principles
of liberalism is separation of church and state. Marxism was the ideology of
the Russian Revolution, which was based on materialism, socialism, dictatorship
of proletariat (working class) and centralization and monopolization of means
of production. This ideology did not play any role in February 1917, but played
a crucial role in the formation and justification of ensuing developments. Its
main feature was opposition to religion. The ideology of the Iranian revolution
was Shia Islam, which is based on monotheism and sublimation of man. This
ideology played a crucial role in the mobilization of masses, organization of
struggles, and finally the collapse of the ruling regime as well as the
formation of the post-revolution developments. Its main feature was return to
religion. Commenting on the role of ideology in the French Revolution, Alexis
de Tocqueville (Charles-Henri-Maurice) maintains that the French Revolution
created a new ideology, that is, atheism without any promise for another life
in the future. Nevertheless, this strange religion, like Islam, dominated the
entire world with its followers, fighters and martyrs.^[66]

A critic of the French government, Volter criticized the authoritarian
government as well as religious fanaticism and extraordinary influence and
mastery of the clerics.^[67] In
fact the ideology of the French Revolution, which is the foundation of
liberalism, rejected the authoritarian religious system of the church and
transferred the sovereignty from God and kings to the people. They tried to
separate the church from the state, that is, they argued that religion is a
spiritual, ethical issue, dealing with man's spirit and morality, while
politics deals with the society, man's body and the material world.

Marxism too is based on materialism, considers economy the
infrastructure and religion the opium of the masses and like other social
relations not only is considered a superstructure, but is a hurdle in the way
of progress. Hence it deems it necessary to oppose the divine religions and
tries to wipe out their roles in the social relations and thoughts of the
masses. Commenting on this issue, Lenin says: The Marxian school of thought is
the very school of materialism. Therefore it is opposed to religion. One should
learn how to struggle against religion and in this regard one should explain
the sources of faith and religion of the masses with materialistic concepts.
Struggle against religion must not be confined to abstract speeches Through
palpable measures of the class movement, his struggle should be connected to
the attempts to uproot religion and fears related to the incessant forces of
capital.^[68]

Liberalism and Marxism played minor roles in the mobilization of social
groups in their struggles against the imperial regimes and given the declining
trend of the Russian and French former regimes, which emerged spontaneously
under the pressure of social, political conditions, the role of these two
ideologies in the pre-revolution struggles was limited and ineffective. While
Islam, particularly Shia revolutionary values, from the very beginning of the
movement in early 1960s played a very crucial, constructive role in the mobilization
of the masses and from the very beginning the leaders and the masses were aware
of their objectives and ideology.

Liberalism and Marxism in France and Russia through their materialistic
approaches projected a limited horizon for their followers, which was limited
to this world alone and hence did not play a significant role in creating an
incentive in the people to overthrow the imperial regimes. They even faced some
problems in materializing and implementing their criteria after the collapse of
the former regimes and hence they made lots of theoretical changes in their
ideologies. On the other hand, both the ideologies were unfamiliar for the
Russian and French peoples and even were in contradiction with the religious
principles of the people who were predominantly religious. These two ideologies
therefore could never prepare the necessary grounds for integrity and unity
among various strata of the society. In contrast, the religion of Islam that
had entered Iran some 1,400 years ago and was familiar for the majority of the
people who had faith in it and lived with it had intermingled with every aspect
of their lives and had deep roots in them. Hence not only it was not in
contradiction with the values of the society, but on the contrary was based on
its worldview, it projected vast horizons for its followers, heralding not only
the felicity in the hereafter, but welfare and salvation in this short-lived
worldly life. Islam has offered the necessary instructions and guidance for the
individual and social daily affairs of the followers as well as for the
management of the society to achieve prosperity in this world and salvation in
the hereafter. Compared to the ideologies of the French and Russian
revolutions, it enjoys a specific grandeur. The success of the revolutionary
ideology of Islam was a distinctive feature of the worldview of the Islamic
Revolution, having a considerable advantage over communism, which opposes
religion. Instead of creating an alternative to the religions, as the Marxists
did, the Islamic Revolution utilized religious elements of Islam and equipped
the people with the necessary ideology for political struggles.

Thus, the secret of the victory of the Islamic Revolution lies in the
magnificence and comprehensiveness of the three pillars of the revolution, that
is, people, leadership and ideology. These three elements, contrary to the
forecast and calculations of the analysts and to astonishment of the observers,
in a successful interaction with each other could bring the powerful,
old-rooted Pahlavi regime to its knees and overthrow it.

On the basis of an analysis of the historical events and developments
of the three revolutions, one may conclude that victory of the Russian and
French revolutions did not stem from integrity, solidarity, and power of the
revolutionary forces, rather it sprouted from fundamental weakness of the
ruling regimes whose political, economic and social crises had been exacerbated
by international pressures, rendering the regime's structures weak and rotten
and making the collapse of the regime inevitable. Indeed, in the power vacuum
ensuring the fall of the imperial regimes, the rival social groups entered the
scene as inheritors of the revolution, competed against each other and seized
the power. It is in the light of these comparisons that the Islamic Revolution,
compared to the Russian and French revolutions, is more magnificent.

It is pertinent here to make a comparative study of the three
revolutions from another aspect. These three events have rarely been named
anything other than revolutions. But if the French and Russian revolutions are
designated as great revolutions, then what should the Islamic Revolution be
called? If the Islamic Revolution is a full-fledge revolution, then what should
be the designation of what happened in France and Russia?

The French consider 1789, which is known as the Great Revolution, the
year of materialization of their revolution. If we consider the year of the
collapse of the imperial regime and a fundamental change in the nature of the
ruling system as the year of every revolution, what happened in 1789 in France
was not really a revolution, for the Bourbon rule, particularly the imperial
government of Louis XVI (Louis-Auguste, Duc (duke) de Berry) continued for
another three years, that is, up to 1792. Even the most radical leaders of the
French Revolution supported the idea of preservation of the monarchical system,
while Louis XVI in a foolish act of violence in 1792 prepared the grounds for
the change of the regime.

The Russians consider October 1917, that is, nine months after the
collapse of the Romanov dynasty, the year of victory of their revolution. In
fact in October 1917 the Bolsheviks snapped the power from the interim
revolutionary government and gained the control of the situation. Historical
studies indicate that the real date of regime change in Russia is February
1917, when the workers of the factories of Petersburg went on strike and the
soldiers of the city garrison evaded confronting them and the Romanov dynasty
collapsed. These changes were spontaneous, abrupt, unplanned, without any
leader, and merely aimed to get rid of the tyranny. At the same time the
October upheaval was in fact a coup engineered by the Bolsheviks against their
socialist and liberal rivals who were present in the interim government and
finally helped the Bolsheviks overthrow the interim government and come to
power. For instance, majority of the active social groups did not accompany the
Bolsheviks and consequently they gained only 25 percent of the votes of the
constituent assembly, compelling Lenin to issue an order for the dissolution of
the assembly.

The unfolding of the events which led to the collapse of the
monarchical regime in Iran in February 1979 indicates that it was a real
revolution and a popular uprising led by an accepted leadership based on a
predetermined plan to replace the monarchical regime with an Islamic system. In
fact it was in the light of these developments that Skocpol maintains that
contrary to the past trends in which "the revolutions came and were not made,"
the Islamic Revolution was made; it did not come.

Still the three revolutions can be studied from another angle, that is,
whether these revolutions ate their children or not.

Only few years after the victory of the French and Russian revolutions
sharp differences appeared among almost all known revolutionary leaders so that
they had no other option except eliminating each other from the scene of
revolution or assassinating each other. In the French revolution gallows were
almost ready everyday to behead one of the leaders of the revolution and even
those who were in the peak of their power until the day before would be
beheaded.

Similar conditions prevailed in Russia. The leaders of the revolution
were so antagonistic that they prepared the grounds for the dictatorship of
Stalin and side by side dug their own graves. As soon as Stalin had established
his absolute dictatorship, summary trials were organized and a number of
revolutionaries were sent to the forced labor camps, particularly in Siberia
where huge genocides took place and a number of revolutionary leaders were sent
to the gallows trees.

In post-revolution Iran a large number of revolutionary leaders fell
martyrs or there have been attempts on their lives. But these martyrdoms and
attacks were not carried out by the revolutionaries, rather by the
counter-revolutionary elements. From the early days of the victory of the
Islamic Revolution, the hostile groups to the Islamic Revolution, that had not
played any role in the victory of the revolution and did not enjoy a
significant social base among the revolutionary masses and had become
disappointed at gaining power through political, popular struggles, mercilessly
assassinated the revolutionary leaders as well as common people who were
committed to the revolution. The explanation for the lack of repetition of the
events of the Russian and French revolutions in the Iranian Revolution should
be sought in the said factors, that is, unequivocal presence of an insightful
leader Islamic virtue and intellectual asset of the leaders of the revolution
prevented the repetition of similar events and thwarted the anti-revolutionary
plots. In fact, if the phrase "revolution eats its children" is applicable to the
French and Russian revolutions, in the case of the Islamic Revolution "the
counter-revolution ate the children of the revolution".

A comparative study of the three revolutions one decade after their
victory could also shed some light on our comparative study. The destiny of
both French and Russian revolutions one tumultuous, fateful decade after the
victory, which brought about lots of atrocities for their people, fell into the
hands of dictators who acted arbitrarily only in order to fulfill their personal
wishes and aspirations and hence muffled any opposition voice. Napoleon
launched his conquest plans at the cost of the lives and properties of the
French people. He went to the extreme of attacking other countries and the
target countries that were endangered got united against him to fight him. The
result was his defeat and exile.

In Russia, Stalin through forceful industrialization and modernization
of Russia, under the pretext of pressuring the subordinate nations, traversed a
path that converted Soviet Union into a colonial, unpopular country. Under the
pretext of preserving the sphere of influence and security of his country,
Stalin expanded and consolidated the influence of his country in the Eastern
European countries during the Second World War.

There were also differences of opinion between
the leaders of the revolution in post-revolution Iran and these differences
still exist. Why has the revolutionary system, despite all those differences,
survived till date and have not these led to the dictatorship of an individual?
The answer lies in the fact that the sagacious leadership of Imam Khomeini as
well as his insightful, sublime spirit and popular manners, which led the ship
of the revolution in the tumultuous waves of the most difficult conditions, did
not allow the differences to destabilize the system, shake the values or cause
the people to leave the scene of the revolution. Although the Imam could
himself make decisions on all issues, he did allow the officials to make
decision within the limits of their jurisdictions, unless he felt that a threat
was endangering the revolution.

Today, both the French and Russian revolutions have reached the end of
their ropes without materializing their promise paradise. Liberalism has failed
to offer the freedom, which is necessary for the satisfaction of man's soul and
mind. On the contrary, it has made man a slave and captive of material bondages
of the industrial societies. Socialism too failed to materialize the social
justice and equality of all men it had promised. Both the schools of thought
reduced man to a tool in the service of industrial machines who have to spend
their entire life for achieving material gains. Today's man neither seeks the
ideals of the French Revolution nor has he pinned his hopes on the promised
paradise of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution any more. Sick of materialistic
life, today's man neither seeks the ideals that preserve individual and
political freedoms at the cost of social justice, nor does he seek social
justice at the cost of political freedoms, for both will lead to man's
captivity in the material bondages. Today, man seeks a society that, on the one
hand, prepares the grounds for his sublimation and spiritual and physical peace
and solace, and on the other, does not sacrifice political freedoms and social
justice for each other. Such wishes are not achievable within the frameworks of
the materialistic, worldly ideals of schools of thought of the French and
Russian revolutions. The material world has become extremely dark and small a
world for the curious, divine, ambitious spirit of man. Evidently, under such a
disappointing circumstances, we should witness man's return to the religion and
observe the victory of the Islamic Revolution as a human revolution, which has
been materialized by relying on religion.