According to the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, on Saturday, May 2, 2026, coinciding with the commemoration anniversary of the martyrdom of Professor Mutahhari and Teacher’s Day, a scientific session titled “The Relationship Between Nationalism and Ummah-Centrism in Iranian Islamic Thought and Ayatollah Khamenei” was held at this research institute. This event, organized by the Research Center for Jurisprudence of Politics and Governance of this institute, was held in the presence of Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Sayyid Sajjad Izadehi as presenter from the Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, Dr. Hossein Javan Arasteh as critic from the Research Institute of Hawzah and University, and Dr. Ali Sharifi as scientific secretary, examining the jurisprudential challenges of the concept of the “nation-state” versus the unity of the Islamic Ummah.
This session focused on central issues such as tension among Muslim countries with existing political borders and the shared destiny of Muslims, presenting Ayatollah Khamenei’s perspective as a model for the convergence of nationality and Ummah as a response to contemporary challenges of political jurisprudence.
At the outset, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Sharifi linked the session’s topic to recent events, including the martyrdom of the Martyred Leader, emphasizing that the relationship between nationalism and Ummah-centrism is one of the challenging discussions of Islamic political jurisprudence. Referring to jurisprudential efforts to find a Sharia basis for the “nation-state,” he addressed key challenges such as differences in jurisprudential rulings across borders.
According to the scientific secretary, even personal and private rulings in Islamic lands differ due to political borders, and rights and privileges alter based on nationality. Most importantly, these border demarcations disrupt the shared political destiny of the Islamic Ummah, preventing Muslims from achieving a unified identity.
Dr. Sharifi, articulating the Supreme Leader’s perspective, emphasized that Iranian nationalism bears no conflict with Ummah-centrism and can serve as its complement. He cited a direct quote from Ayatollah Khamenei describing Martyr Qasem Soleimani: “He was the most national and most Ummah-oriented commander of Iran’s corps,” demonstrating the possibility of national identity coexisting with commitment to the single Islamic Ummah. This perspective, as a jurisprudential response to border challenges, proposes that nationalism is an instrument for strengthening Islamic unity, not a factor for weakening it.
The Relationship Between Nationalism and Ummah-Centrism in Iranian Islamic Thought and Ayatollah Khamenei
Subsequently, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Izadehi, congratulating Teacher’s Day and wishing for the continuation of professors’ teaching role, examined the discussion from the perspective of political jurisprudence. Focusing on the challenge of the principle of the existence of national borders within the framework of Dar al-Islam, he posed questions such as: “Are geographical borders based on non-Islamic norms permissible?” He described borders as conventional and non-inherent, emphasizing that they can be “diluted or thickened”; for example, through facilitating travel like the European Union, or intensifying them like restrictions during the COVID-19 era.
Dr. Izadehi noted that separatism destroys national identity, and nationality possesses a strong conventional validity evident in wars and border losses, such as what Iran experienced. Regarding the conflict between national identity and Ummah-centrism, he cited the example of Egypt, where the debate over “pre-Islamic Egypt” versus “Islamic Egypt” remains hot, and in Iran, some place nationality under Islamicity, while others accuse it of Arab-worship or West-worship.
The faculty member at the Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought considered nationalism compared to the Ummah as general and particular, emphasizing that nationality must be placed under a broader logic such as the Islamic world or Shi’ism. He noted: “Nationalism is not inherently a bad thing. It is a conventional matter subject to the advantages and disadvantages it can possess. On this basis, nationalism during times of dominance (such as the colonial era or church influence) can be useful, but it must be noted that after independence, it should not lead to constraint and isolation.”
Dr. Izadehi added: “In Iran, nationalism is a symbol of cohesion: despite diverse ethnicities and denominations, emphasis is placed on Iranian identity, a unified flag, the Constitution, and a unified leader, prompting even non-religious individuals to sacrifice their lives in wars.”
Examining the challenge of the suspicion of confrontation between nationality and Ummah with reference to the realm of jurisprudence, he did not consider Dar al-Iman (such as Shi’i Iran) as negating Dar al-Islam, adding that the suspicion of identity arises only in the capacity of defending independence or disparaging identity, not in the capacity of expansion. Based on this perspective, Martyr Soleimani’s actions in Iraq, Levant (Sham), Nicaragua, and Venezuela were not a disparagement of being Iranian, but an expansion of regional influence to defend Iran without surrendering territory to enemies such as the United States.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Izadehi emphasized the perspective of the Martyred Imam (Ayatollah Khamenei) that insistence on Iranian identity, the Persian language, unity of ethnicities, and “Islamic Iran” as the platform for the Revolution bears no conflict whatsoever with Islamicity. In his view, the Islamic Revolution requires a platform like Iran, which may expand to “Iran and Iraq,” without negating nationality. The main challenge is preserving identity against infiltration.
Dr. Izadehi did not view Iranian nationality in confrontation with the Islamic world, considering it a source for interests, cohesion, unity, and defense that can lead to an Islamic-Iranian civilization. He cited Iranian poets such as Hafez, Sa’di, and Ferdowsi, who portrayed Arabic words or Islamic epics in poetic form without conflict with Iranian identity.
In the critique section, Dr. Javan Arasteh, while commemorating Teacher’s Day, considered Dr. Izadehi’s presentation useful, emphasizing ambiguities and stating: Nationalism is not necessarily synonymous with anti-colonial resistance, and called the lack of documentation citing the Leader’s statements (not a single instance) challenging, highlighting the need for an integrated “model.”
From the perspective of the constitutional law of the Islamic Republic, he considered the system Ummah-centric, yet the second pillar of the state to be the “nation,” proposing the presentation of a model encapsulating the Ummah within the nation. Outlining the design of a model of specific citizenship (a specific state) under general Islamic citizenship to interact with the world’s Muslims without duality, he noted: “The two key terms nation and Ummah possess conceptual separation and can be synthesized in the human pillar of the state, the very pillar we usually call the second pillar, the nation; that is, despite that conceptual difference, it presents a model of the Islamic Ummah that places the Ummah within the nation.”
Subsequently, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Raha’i, one of the professors present at the session, expressed his viewpoints, critiquing the title of the session and considering “nationalism versus Ummah-centrism” incorrect, posing the question: What is meant by nationalism, Ummah-centrism, nation, and Ummah? He identified conflating political borders with nationalism as the main challenge.
Citing the tradition “Love of homeland is part of faith” (Hubb al-watan min al-iman), he considered borders subject to realities (authority, dominance), not mere conventionalities.
Subsequently, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Danesh-Pazhouh presented his material, critiquing Dr. Izadehi’s remarks by interpreting nation as a borderless, political society with sovereignty, proposing the acceptance of nationality under Ummah-centrism, adding that Islam accepts ethnicities but invites to unity.
Regarding the tradition “Love of homeland is part of faith,” he noted: “The root of nationalism is self-love (from egoism to humanism), but in Islam, truth-seeking (God-centrism) lacks it. Defending the homeland with multi-layered titles and macro-nationalism is to the detriment of the Islamic Ummah.”
Negating the Paradox of Nationality and Ummah: Synergy of Truth-Seeking or Model-Building Challenge? Izadehi’s Jurisprudential Summary on the Bedrock of Khamenei’s Thought in the Contemporary Research Institute Session
In his final summary, Dr. Izadehi, thanking attendees for the raised points, considered the paradox between nationality and Ummah as moot, adding: These two do not conflict and possess capacity for synergy from the perspective of foundations and benefit/harm, negating the paradox not for nationalism, but accepting nationality in line with the Ummah. Calling the axis of resistance truth-seeking (not preserving borders), he stated: Defending Palestine and combating the Zionist regime knows no borders, and the defense shield extends beyond security borders; hence border conventionalities are subject to power and influence; like the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, formed based on prior norms, and altering them is possible through leverage of power.
He described Dar al-Islam as multi-faceted in jurisprudence, stating: Irrespective of government, it is based on the permissibility of slaughtered meat (hilliyyat-e zabihah), the market of Muslims (suq al-muslimin), or beliefs; but in the sense of Islamic sovereignty, non-Muslims within it (like the Jews of Medina during the Prophet’s time) act in synergy with Muslims against the enemy.
In response to Dr. Raha’i, he emphasized that the intent is not Shi’i exclusivity, but its centrality, and the platform of Islam in Iran is the core of unity; defending Iran is defending Islam and vice versa. “Hence these are not a paradox, they are not oxymoronic; these possess capacity for synthesis, they create synergy.”
He added that model-building (the relationship of Ummah and nation) extends beyond the current discussion: first negating the contradiction, then the model.
Referring to the Leader’s perspective, citing a quote of his speech during the war era: “When you defend Iran, you automatically defend Islam. When you defend Islam without defending Iran in these conditions where Saddam… you know what blow the country receives? Automatically, when you stand against Saddam, it is both defense of Iran and of Islam.” This expression considers the platform of the Revolution to be Islamic Iran: without Iran, the core of Islam is not preserved.