Statements at the Beginning of the Advanced Jurisprudence Class

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Thanks be to God, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad and his pure family, and may God's curse be upon all their enemies.

Imam Ali (peace be upon him) said: The true jurist is one who does not make people despair of God's mercy, does not make them lose hope in God's spirit, and does not make them feel secure from God's plan.

There are numerous hadiths with this meaning. The essence of these hadiths is that the truth should be presented to the people as it is; not to make them despair through harshness and narrow-mindedness, nor to make them feel secure from God's plan through following desires and opinions not based on principles, encouraging them to sin. The core of jurisprudence is understanding the truth of religion and the truth of the Sharia and conveying it to the people.

Today, as we resume this discussion after a relatively long break, according to the custom of seminary lessons, we found it necessary to present some points, hoping they will be beneficial, God willing, both for the present gathering and for anyone who becomes aware of these points. I have noted down several topics in a continuous and numbered manner, which I will present:

The first point is about the role of the seminaries. In our society—whether in the past, present, or future—this role must be studied and contemplated deeply. We have chosen the seminary from the body of the clergy, especially because it is the field of religious scholars and the nursery of the flourishing saplings of future jurisprudence. Over time, these seminaries have been able to preserve and explain religion—without the efforts of the seminaries from the beginning until today, certainly nothing of religion and religious truths would remain; the survival of religion is indebted to the scholarly efforts of the seminaries—and they have been able to strengthen the religious spirit of the people. It is from these seminaries that scholars and preachers have risen to preach religion among the people and strengthen the religious spirit in them, and they have also been able to guide the thought of society. From a thousand years ago until today—after the era of hadith and text orientation, and from the beginning of the era of reasoning—it was these seminaries that were able to guide the religious thought of the people, give them a religious spirit, and preserve religion.

Over time, these seminaries have also influenced political issues, and we have seen this in our past history; like the era of Allameh Hilli (may God's mercy be upon him), who had a mobile school and moved students with him in various cities and regions; and before that, in the time of Sheikh Tusi and his students, who spread throughout the Islamic world—whether in the east or the west, like the cities of Sham, Tripoli, Egypt, and other regions—or in the time of Sayyid Murtadha; and in times closer to our own, like the era before Sheikh Ansari, the time of the late Kashif al-Ghita, when the seminaries were influential in the ongoing transformations of life; and later, the students of Sheikh Ansari—like the late Mirza Shirazi—and later Akhund Khorasani and others whose roles in the events before the Constitutional Revolution and in the Constitutional Revolution itself and after it until our time are known (that is, it must be said that not everyone knows. Unfortunately, this is among the topics that have been little researched and worked on; everyone should know. These are known, recognized, and recorded matters); and in our time, when the movement of the nation and the realization of the Islamic Revolution and the emergence of a society with Islamic foundations were carried out by the seminaries. It was the seminary teacher who was the pioneer. The students and scholars of the seminary were the soldiers of that commander and that leader throughout the country. A work was accomplished that had not been done in the history of Islam since the early days until today, and that was the realization of this Islamic system. Even after the revolution until today, the presence of students and seminaries in various stages of the revolution is clear.

Thus, the seminary has a vital role for society from various aspects, and—as we said—this must be contemplated; that is, people should think about it, research it, gather the necessary materials, and present new ideas in this field.

The second point is that now we have such a great treasure at our disposal and at the disposal of the Islamic world and the Islamic clergy. Naturally, wherever in the world such a fundamental treasure exists, they plan for it day and night and do not neglect its guidance for a moment. Great and knowledgeable people are planning how to use this great reserve; what about us? How much do we plan for our seminaries? Who does this planning? How much of the time of the great and prominent clergy is spent on planning for the seminary? Is there organized planning for the seminary, as much as for a small worldly office or a small university? Certainly not! Yes, one person might sit and think about his own lesson, what issues to discuss until the end of the year, how to say it, which books to refer to. How is this related to planning for the seminary?

How many seminaries do we have in the country now? In the history of Shi'ism, has there ever been a seminary like the seminary of Qom? Neither Najaf, nor Qom, nor Isfahan, nor Mashhad, nor Tabriz, nor any other major seminary has witnessed the flourishing and greatness that the seminary of Qom has had in this period and in our time. Who plans for this great treasure, along with other seminaries that, thanks be to God, exist throughout the country today—whether large seminaries like Mashhad, Isfahan, Tabriz, and some other cities, or small seminaries that exist throughout the country? How much of our time is spent on planning? In comparison to this great value, what we do is almost negligible!

We must know that seminaries need planning. There must be specialized and dedicated groups for this task; they should sit and constantly have a perspective on the seminary and its path, and make scientific plans for its future.

The third point is that in the seminaries, the foundation is jurisprudence. Jurisprudence must progress. Jurisprudence in its specific sense is what we mean. Jurisprudence in the general sense—awareness of religion—is not our current discussion here; jurisprudence in the specific sense, meaning awareness of religious knowledge and religious branches and deriving individual and social duties from the collection of religious texts, which is very important.

A person has conditions from before birth to after death, and these conditions include his individual conditions and personal life, as well as his social conditions and political, economic, and social life and other aspects. The duty and fate of all these are determined in jurisprudence. Jurisprudence in this sense is what we mean, which is called secondary rulings; deriving secondary rulings from principles. This is the foundation of the seminaries.

Of course, when we say jurisprudence, we mean what we said. When we say jurisprudence, we mean the working method and working style in the seminaries. This method of derivation is termed 'jurisprudence,' which is used in the words of jurists more or less in this sense. The method of jurisprudence means this method of referring branches to principles, and deriving from principles and the foundations of derivation—book, tradition, reason, and consensus—and the quality of this derivation and the confrontation between evidences and the arrangement and sequencing of different evidences, which one to refer to first; for example, we first refer to the evidences of ijtihad, to the apparent meanings; if the apparent meanings conflict, what should we do? If we do not have apparent meanings, what should we do? When do the practical principles come into play? Which principle takes precedence over another principle? And so on. This method that we study in the science of principles, we call it 'jurisprudence.' So, the foundation in the seminaries is jurisprudence, in the sense of the science that was mentioned; and the method of jurisprudence is in the sense that was explained.

Jurisprudence and jurisprudence must progress in the seminaries. This progress is both in terms of depth and in terms of the breadth and coverage of life issues. Jurisprudence must become deeper; deeper than it is. Just as you look, the jurisprudence of the time of Allameh Hilli (may God's mercy be upon him) is deeper than the jurisprudence of the time of Sheikh Ansari; that is, it has encountered various opinions and over time, it has acquired a special depth and complexity. The jurisprudence of the time of, for example, the Second Investigator—Ali ibn Abdul-Aali Karaki—has more depth compared to the jurisprudence of the time of Allameh. Or for example, the jurisprudence of Sheikh in Makasib has more depth. We must increase this depth. Depth does not mean engaging in unnecessary details and minutiae; no, it means analyzing the issue, applying new research methods to it, and deepening it through them. Someone who is a researcher can recognize this research method in practice.

We must give depth to jurisprudence. We must avoid superficiality in jurisprudence. Today, our jurisprudence must be deeper than the jurisprudence of the time of Sheikh and the students of Sheikh and the students of the students of Sheikh—the greats of the previous era. In issues, we must not think superficially at all. We must give complexity and depth to jurisprudence. This is one aspect of the progress of jurisprudence.

Another aspect is the breadth and coverage of life issues; that is, we must not be content with some chapters—those with individual importance, not social importance—such as the chapters of purity. Look now and see how many books have been written on the chapter of purity; how many books have been written on the chapter of jihad, or on the chapter of judgment, or on the chapter of limits and retributions, or on the chapter of Islamic economic issues. You will see that the former is more than the latter; in some cases, it is much more. Some of our comprehensive books do not even have the book of jihad. For example, the author of 'Hadaiq' and many other jurists did not find it necessary to discuss jihad, which is one of the principles of Islam and Sharia. Of course, 'Hadaiq' is not comprehensive—it has deficiencies—but they have passed over the place where jihad should be examined and have not discussed it. Jihad is at the end of acts of worship and before entering into transactions and contracts. Many others—like the late Naraqi—did not discuss it; some who did discuss it did so very briefly and, for example, you see that they did not apply the scientific complexities in some books. We must give breadth to jurisprudence; that is, our jurisprudence must progress in terms of the breadth of the scope of jurisprudence and include all life issues.

Today, there are many issues that are not clear to us from a jurisprudential perspective; I even want to say that in some chapters of jurisprudence, there are some branches that our predecessors addressed and stated their rulings; but the later ones did not even discuss them. That is, today if you refer to 'Mabsut' by Sheikh (may God's mercy be upon him) or for example to 'Tahrir' by Allameh, you will find more branches than in many of the books of jurists who came after them; especially the jurists who are close to our time and give less importance to branches; while each of these branches has a role in the life of society. So, jurisprudence must expand.

Today, our jurisprudence must thoroughly address the rulings of transactions; it must look at the rulings of leasing in a global manner; it must derive and state the rulings of various types of contracts from the sacred law. Many of these are not clear to us today. Look at a simple partnership of ours—which we did not pay much attention to—it can hypothetically manage banking. Very well, why do we not conduct the necessary investigation in the jurisprudential books and various jurisprudential chapters to find ways to manage life? So, it must progress both in terms of scope and in terms of method. The same method of jurisprudence that was mentioned needs refinement, innovation, and progress. New ideas must work on it so that it can be made more effective.

The fourth point is that while jurisprudence is the foundation of the matter, other Islamic sciences in the seminaries should not be neglected. For example, the science of the Quran, understanding the Quran, understanding the Quran, and familiarity with the Quran should exist as a science and a field in the seminaries. Our students should memorize the Quran or at least be familiar with it. How many Islamic concepts are there in the Quran that if we want to discuss them in jurisprudence, we do not think of them. This isolation of the Quran in the seminaries and our lack of familiarity with the Quran has created many problems for us and will continue to do so and will give us narrow-mindedness.

Once, before the revolution, in Mashhad, in a tafsir class, I used to tell the students that from the beginning of 'Know, may God support you,' until we receive our ijtihad certificate, we can even go through it without referring to the Quran once! That is, our study system is such that if a student does not refer to the Quran even once from the beginning, he can go through our field from start to finish and become a mujtahid! Why? Because our lesson does not pass through the Quran at all. Unfortunately, even now when I look, I see it is the same. In jurisprudence, sometimes we mention a verse of the Quran, but it is not worked on and researched as much as our hadiths are discussed and worked on.

The Quran is isolated from our seminary; for example, the science of the Quran, issues related to the Quran; these things that you see now under the title of Quranic sciences have become common and the predecessors wrote many books about them and now fortunately some people pay attention to them. Tafsir, which is an independent science, is the same. Hadith, familiarity with hadith, the science of hadith, the recognition of hadith, which delving into this science leads to good categorization, good indexing, and good use—which unfortunately we are now deprived of all of them—is the same. In rijal, which must be worked on and researched, it is the same. Although good books have been written, nevertheless, one feels that there is a great void in rijal. It is from this knowledge and recognition of rijal that we want to obtain proof for ourselves in the matter of tradition; work must be done on it. History is also very important. Even from history, it is possible to use it in jurisprudence. Many jurisprudential issues are related to history; but we have paid little attention to this connection and have not even discovered it. Of course, I present history as an independent science, it is an Islamic science; some people must work on it.

Philosophy, although it is common in the seminaries, in reality, it must be said that it is neglected. Philosophy must become common in the seminaries. Philosophy is not just that we take the book of Manzumeh or Asfar and read it from beginning to end; no, proficiency in philosophy means that we can be aware of all the existing philosophical thoughts in the world—which progresses in a chronological manner and philosophical thought is presented hour by hour—and be aware of the material of our existing philosophy and keep ourselves on alert against false and deviant philosophies and occasionally use any positive point in them. Our philosophy progresses in this way; otherwise, in terms of knowing the thoughts and words of the greats, it does not have that much value. Philosophy must lead us to complete knowledge. We must see what is being done in the field of knowledge at the human level. New works, new thoughts, new methods, and new methodologies must be continuously presented in the seminary.

New theology is also the same. Today, theological discussions that are presented to defend religious beliefs are different from those of the past. Who now raises the doubt of 'Ibn Kamunah'? Today, there are many doubts in the world of human thoughts and knowledge. The seminaries must know these doubts and the way to confront them and always have a sharp and aggressive stance against philosophies and tendencies and religions. So, these fields must be considered in the seminaries and specialists in these sciences must be trained and the seminary should not look at them with indifference.

In the past, if someone wanted to gain scientific status in the seminary, he should not have engaged in tafsir! A respectable learned scholar, for example, is engaged in tafsir and people benefit from his tafsir, then because this lesson causes him to be reputed as ignorant, he abandons this lesson! Is this not a disaster? It should be the opposite; that is, they should say Mr. So-and-so is a specialist and a great teacher of tafsir; he is a specialist in philosophy; he is a specialist in theology; he is a specialist in history; that is, it should be a title in the seminary. Such things should have value in the seminary; as there were such things in the past.

In our own time, the late Allameh Tabatabaei (may God's mercy be upon him) was at a level that if he had confined himself to jurisprudence, he would certainly have reached the position of Marja' of imitation. He was not less than the scholars of his time, if not more; but he left jurisprudence to those who were engaged in jurisprudence. At that time in Qom, the late Ayatollah Boroujerdi with that greatness, and the teachers after that great man, were engaged in jurisprudence; but he came and engaged in philosophy and became a pillar, and after there was no significant sign of philosophy in Qom, he revived it; he trained students, initiated philosophical knowledge, and expanded it. Of course, before him, Imam taught philosophy, but in a limited circle and with specific students; but he expanded it, made the lesson extensive, and spent his life on philosophy. The seminaries should be like this. It should not be that everyone must take the path of jurisprudence; no, the student must know that if he pursues the field of history or tafsir or philosophy or theology or Quranic sciences or other Islamic sciences, there is a value awaiting him and appropriate valuation is made.

The fifth point is that the seminary must be informed of global advances—in all matters related to Islamic sciences—and align itself with them. For example, today in the field of sociology, new concepts are being presented that these concepts are related to the work of religious scholars. Suppose Marx's sociological or historical concepts come into societies and become a means of instilling Marxist materialistic and philosophical thoughts. Marx's social or economic discussions are separate from his philosophical discussions. Although he has chained and linked them together, they are separate categories. Materialism is one category, scientific socialism in economics is another category. Or social classes, as Marx depicts them in historical transformation—which is the basis of scientific socialism—is another matter; but the same economic issues and the same social concepts affect the philosophical mind of their audience; then the seminary starts to strive and walk to confront materialism!

Why are we not aware from the beginning of what is being prepared and produced in the world to be given to human thoughts, so that we prepare ourselves from the root? Should we wait until a hundred years after Marx's death, when his thoughts have spread everywhere and entered our country and four of our children have become Tudeh or Marxist and denied God, then we suddenly think that now, for example, we should write a book against their atheism and godlessness! Is this correct? Is this the way? Or not, if from the time when Marxist economic or social thoughts or any other school of thought were taking root and sprouting—I mention Marxism as an example, which today there is almost no news of Marxism in the world; today there are other things—if the seminaries were aware and aligned themselves and advanced, they could have timely and appropriately provided the correct Islamic thoughts and not allowed themselves to be in a defensive position; always having an aggressive and explanatory stance. So, they must align themselves with thoughts that are somehow related to Islamic issues.

The dialectical logic had been advancing in the world for a long time, Hegel had emerged and created a dialectic; it had spread all over the world and gradually came and attacked the formal and formal logic, which is the basis of our arguments; we suddenly thought of coming and destroying or rejecting the dialectic! This kind of approach to issues is a reactive approach. We must be familiar with global developments so that a reactive approach does not occur; rather, an active approach occurs.

The sixth point is that the seminary must become familiar with modern research methods. When we say research, we mean both deep research—that is, what we call research in the seminary; that is, delving into the subject—and horizontal research, which in European methods is also called research, and we call it investigation. We do not have a debate about naming; this is also a type of research; it is horizontal research, surface research; that is, searching for a subject in breadth and width. Today, both types of research have modern methods. Professors sit, guide students; group work is done and collective research is presented. Collective research is more reliable than individual research; differences are reduced and progress is increased. These methods should be employed in the seminary.

We have always followed the individual method in the seminary. In my opinion, the methods are still individual. This lesson you observe is an individual work. It is true that a hundred people, a thousand people are sitting in a lesson, but each of them is individually facing the teacher and is the teacher's audience; then he goes and engages in his own work. Even our discussion is an individual work. It is strange! One day this gentleman becomes the teacher, he becomes the student; this one becomes the speaker, he becomes the listener; one day he becomes the teacher, this one becomes the student; he becomes the speaker, this one becomes the listener! That is, it is not a collective and group work, it is not intellectual interaction; it is individual work. Of course, this individual work has its advantages, which should not be lost; but collective methods are also common in the world; why do we not use these methods?

The seventh point is that the seminary must move towards specialization. Fortunately, some work has been done and preliminary steps have been taken; but more seriousness is needed and a timeline should be set. Until when do we want to fully specialize? So far, two specialized fields have been established in Qom, which apparently one is tafsir and one is theology; but this amount that in a corner two specialized fields with two teachers are established is not enough. Of course, this is a good step as the first step, but specialization in the seminary must be taken seriously. With this vast scope and great work that exists, even jurisprudence itself—transactions and acts of worship—should be specialized. It is true that they are related to each other and each may affect the other, but nevertheless, each is a separate work that can have a specialist. Principles and jurisprudence and different chapters of jurisprudence and specialization and degrees of specialization and other methods must be taken seriously in the seminary.

The eighth point is that serious attention should be paid to preaching in the seminary; that is, planning should be done for preaching. This great reserve in the seminary—all these young clergy ready to speak and preach—is at our disposal; is this a small thing? Of course, students always go spontaneously and self-sufficiently, and this is in various places, with invitation and without invitation, good and bad, useful and less useful and very useful; but no calculated product is expected from it. Why? Because there is no planning. Sometimes, if God forbid, a student preaches somewhere that does not turn out well, there is no one to stop it or compensate for its damage; because there was no prior planning and calculation. They must sit and calculate where to preach, by whom, by which preaching tool, what the content of that preaching should be, what the goal of that preaching should be.

We preach to make what out of our audience? Sometimes you want to preach to make, for example, a volunteer for the imposed war out of your audience, so that under the influence of your words, he goes to the front for a month, two months, six months. Sometimes your goal from preaching is to make a believer who lives with this faith for the rest of his life. Sometimes a seasonal issue has arisen, you want to preach to prepare him for facing that seasonal issue; this is also one way. In the seminary, there should be a specific organization for preaching planning; it should plan, work, and prepare individuals for preaching.

The ninth point is to pursue the idea of the unity of religion and politics, both in jurisprudence and in practice. Gentlemen should know that the idea of the separation of religion and politics, as a plague, has not been completely eradicated. Unfortunately, there are still people in the seminaries who think that the seminary should engage in its own work, and the people of politics and the people of running the country should engage in their own work; at most, they should not have any opposition with each other! But the idea that religion should serve the administration of people's lives and politics should be nourished by religion has not yet been properly established in some minds. We must root this idea in the seminary; in such a way that we place jurisprudence in this way, and we are like this in practice. What does this mean? It means that jurisprudential derivation should be based on the jurisprudence of administering the system; not the jurisprudence of administering the individual. Our jurisprudence from purity to retributions should be aimed at administering a country, administering a society, and administering a system. Even when you think about absolute water or, for example, bath water in the chapter of purity, you should pay attention that this will have an impact somewhere in the administration of this society's life; until it reaches the chapters of transactions and the chapters of general rulings and personal conditions and other chapters that exist. We must derive all of these as part of the administration of a country. This will affect derivation and sometimes create profound changes.

In practice, we must also be like this. Students should be trained for the needs of society. This society needs judges. There should be an organization in Qom that directs students towards training judges. It should not be that the training of judges is also entrusted to someone else by the seminary. There should be a place in the seminary that directs students towards presence in various administrative bodies of the country—like ideological organizations, political organizations, and various departments that need them. There should be a place that directs individuals and groups towards finding important issues that the system needs.

Today, in the administration of the country, we encounter issues that are our religious and jurisprudential problems and dilemmas; we want answers to these, but no one is responsive. We must sit ourselves, or see a gentleman and ask him, or for example, say search in the books and find the answer to this issue. There should be an organization ready and foresee all the problems and dilemmas of the system; think about them, provide solutions, and prepare ready answers for them. This is among the duties of the seminaries; therefore, it belongs to Islam, and Islam is what the seminary was created for.

Of course, another aspect of the unity of religion and politics is that the seminaries must never remain distant from politics. Students must gain political awareness. Political currents of the day should not precede the minds of students in the seminary. Students must be present in the political atmosphere; rather, they should be ahead of the times and have a clear political thought; just as scholars who had clear political thought were beneficial.

We see a brave, useful, scholarly, and personally beneficial scholar who, due to not having political thought, should have been beneficial in one place, but was not; he gave an opinion in one place, which was contrary; he gave a diagnosis about an individual, which was a wrong diagnosis and caused major mistakes in this regard. When we do not give importance to political thought, this will happen. A religious scholar must have a clear, lively, and moment-appropriate political thought.

The tenth point is that maximum attention and respect should be given to Islamic values in the seminary; for example, a student who has gone to the front and spent his life there must have a high value in the seminary. A student who has spent part of his life in the military, in a section, in an organ of the organs, has been engaged in service there and for the sake of the system's interest, has kept himself away from the desire and zeal of every student—which is being in the seminary, studying, researching, and the like—should be valued. It should not be that in the seminary it is perceived that if a student goes to an organ and, for example, spends five years, ten years engaged in service, his seminary value decreases; no, we should say that his value increases. Is the value of this student greater, or that of someone who did not pay attention to this need of society at all? While he was needed, he did not even glance and was busy with his own studies? It is clear that the easier and less troublesome path and the path of comfort is to stay there, engage in one's own work, and not pay attention at all. Of course, he will read four more words, but it is not clear that he will understand and comprehend the issues better.

The seminary must value the struggles and sacrifices that students made, their presence on the fronts, their presence in the organs, and value them and try to compensate for any scientific deficiencies they have in a special way. Suppose there is a student who, due to the needs of the revolution, the needs of the people, the religious needs, has gone to a remote, bad climate point—where naturally no one is willing to go—and has stayed there for six months, a year, five years. The seminary must value this person. This is very valuable, compared to someone who did not endure this hardship, did not endure this cold and heat and insecurity and hunger and problems and humiliation and danger and staying away from wife and children and the like, and stayed in the seminary. Which one has more value? Certainly, those who struggled and made efforts should be valued more. These values should be accounted for; we do not say more; each has a value. It is possible that someone stayed in the seminary and, for example, conducted a very outstanding research in the seminary, which of course is another value.

Islamic values must be accounted for. One of these values is preaching in dangerous and remote places and in places in need of preaching. One of these values is presence on the fronts. One of these values is presence in the organs and such things that have importance and value.

The eleventh point that the seminaries should pay attention to is that for students who have no income other than stipends, new methods should be used. Ultimately, some actions must be taken; like organizational housing, like special coupons, like insurance and the like. These actions must be taken for students in the seminaries so that their minds are somewhat at ease. Although this habit of contentment and asceticism is the good habit of our students in the seminaries and students should not confuse it with comfort-seeking and should maintain it, nevertheless, these thoughts should also be considered.

The twelfth point is that in the seminary, there should be a strong avoidance of getting involved in factional issues; which, thanks be to God, has been observed, and should continue to be observed. Especially young students should be careful and not drag these factional and group issues and conflicts and disputes and backbiting and the like into the seminaries, as it will cause damage in the seminaries.

The thirteenth issue is that every student should plan for the future of his scientific and intellectual life; not remain aimlessly in the seminary. There is a period of studies; he is studying Kifayah, he wants to go to advanced lessons, he goes to advanced lessons, he wants to become a mujtahid, very well, then he should plan for the future. Everyone has a taste, everyone has an ability, everyone may have a specific opportunity available to him; these should be planned in advance and he should prepare himself. It should not be that ten years, fifteen years, twenty years pass and they remain aimlessly in the seminary and sit in this lesson and that lesson and become fossilized; neither benefiting the people nor benefiting themselves.

The fourteenth point—which may be one of the most important, or rather the most important of these issues—is the issue of moral refinement in the seminaries; which we have talked about a lot and repeatedly mentioned, so we did not want to elaborate on it much.

The issue of moral refinement, the issue of simple living, the issue of turning away from worldly adornments should be taken seriously in the seminaries. It should not be that a student, because of his house—which is two streets away from the place of study—thinks of a personal car. What is a car? From the beginning, the foundation of seminary work was based on hardship and indifference to worldly adornments; but now we immediately think of having a personal car and a certain house! Of course, there should be a minimum livelihood; so that a person is not preoccupied with those things and can study comfortably and do the necessary and expected work; but it should not be that seminary work also turns into something like other jobs that some people do—pursuing luxuries and pursuing adornments and the like. This is a very big flaw that must be strongly prevented.

The fifteenth issue is that in the examinations of students—which is very important—the examiners should, with their method, warn students against fruitless delving into some small tasks and phrases and minutiae and engaging in margins and the like and pull them out. It should not be that the student thinks that if he wants to take an exam, he must, for example, pay attention to these details and know these minutiae, and consequently be left out of the main issues. Of course, this point should also be observed in lessons, but the main thing is in the exam. Not only should students be warned against fruitless delving into some small tasks, but they should also be directed more towards research, investigation, free-thinking, the breadth of the issues under consideration, and innovation.

The last issue is the issue of textbooks. These textbooks of ours are not eternal that we must say until the end: 'Three have no end; Rasail, Makasib, Kifayah.' No, one day there was no Rasail, one day there was no Makasib, a scholar like Sheikh was created. One day there was no Kifayah, a scholar like Akhund was created. It is not that we think that education is necessarily through these books; no, we should look, find the flaw in these books, and provide a flawless book; see if this scientific arrangement is correct or not; if we see it is not correct, find the correct form. Committees should be dedicated to writing books, writing new materials, introducing comparative jurisprudence in the seminary, and in short, employing new methods in textbooks.

These were the points we wanted to present regarding issues related to the seminaries. Although many of you gentlemen who are present here are free from these issues—because you are not in the seminary and are outside the seminary—but we generally wanted these issues to exist in our seminary intellectual space.

And thanks be to God, Lord of the worlds