Statements of His Excellency in a Meeting with a Group of Scholars, Clerics, and Researchers of the Religious Seminaries of the Country

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

This session was very sweet and pleasant for me. Many discussions have been held about the successes of the seminary - whether the blessed seminary of Qom or other great seminaries like Mashhad and Isfahan - and many promises have been made in this regard, but in my opinion, what I observed tonight in this session was sweeter, more desirable, and more believable than all that I have heard in this regard. This generation that is currently flourishing in the seminaries - represented by the gentlemen who spoke and the lady who spoke - will undoubtedly be able to accomplish the great tasks that we expect from the seminary of religious knowledge, provided that this movement does not decline, but rather becomes more complete and progresses day by day.

Regarding the proposals I have made over the years about the seminary, whether in public gatherings with students, scholars, and teachers where hundreds, sometimes thousands, participated; or in smaller, more private sessions with some of the officials of the seminary or the elders or the authorities, many proposals have been continuously raised and discussed, many of which have not yet been realized, or have been realized only partially and halfway. However, from the vibrant and spontaneous religious and scientific movement that has arisen from the Islamic Revolution and is one of its blessings, the merit and reward of which return to the pure spirit of our great Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified), we observe that we have achieved so many accomplishments. Many of those reformist ideas have not yet been realized, but the production, quality, and human resources at this level that we are witnessing today are remarkable. I saw one example of this in the statements of the gentlemen tonight, which was truly enjoyable for me; I also observed other examples in some gatherings of scholars who met with me. A group of scholars exploring rational sciences - philosophy, theology, mysticism, logic, and so on - met with me a year or two ago, and I saw the same thing there; scholars who are connected with universities also met with me, and I had the same impression and reflection in my mind. This is a very important point. It indicates the capacity and potential for the growth of human resources in the seminary. This climate and natural conditions have such implications; we have not reached that point, and it is as it is; if we do reach it, certainly the benefits and blessings will multiply several times, perhaps tenfold. This is the first point I want to make.

Of course, I had noted some points to share with you here, but it is not necessary; there is no time, and even if there were time, it would not be necessary, because many of the points that were in my mind have been expressed by you. It is very interesting and beautiful for me to see that these points are in the minds of my brothers. I will only mention two or three brief points so that time does not pass too much:

One is that the seminary, as a whole that has parts and components, is a living entity. It has growth, decline, movement, and vitality; it has life and death; it is a living entity. The evidence for this is the history of the seminaries. A seminary - for example, consider the seminary of Hillah in the seventh century - was a flourishing seminary. When Khwaja Nasir al-Din al-Tusi went to Hillah, there were a number of great scholars who were gathered there - as I recall - apparently about twenty or twenty-five great scholars, one of whom was Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, one was the father of Allameh, and one was Ibn Sa'id, the author of Al-Jami' al-Shara'ih - Yahya Ibn Sa'id al-Hilli - and so on. This seminary of Hillah does not exist today. The seminary of Najaf was once a seminary that, after its initial prosperity, fell into decline. There was no famous person, no prominent figure in the seminary of Najaf; then students of Wahid Behbahani, such as Bahr al-Ulum and Kashif al-Ghita, came and revived that seminary to such an extent that, in my opinion, for two hundred years, their efforts have been advancing the seminary of Najaf. Their jurisprudential skill and depth of work invigorated and revived the seminary, and it has remained alive, thanks be to God, until recent times.

The seminary of Qom did not exist; it was a pale, unprosperous seminary after its initial prosperity in the previous era. Haj Sheikh Abdul-Karim Ha'eri (may God’s mercy be upon him) came, and the seminary revived; this is how the seminary is. Do not look at today; there is a tomorrow; what will that tomorrow be like? You must determine this; today must determine it.

If today the pillars of the seminary, meaning the managers, experts, professors, and prominent figures, strive, think correctly, and plan, the seminary will be much better in twenty years in terms of level, depth, breadth, and population than it is now. If we do not make predictions now, it is uncertain whether the Qom seminary will even exist in the future with the same breadth and depth it currently has. Great scholars, researchers, good scholars, jurists, and philosophers will be taken from the seminary; they will leave - I do not mean to diminish them - and personalities must grow in their place, flourish; they must fill their places and do more than what they did. If this is done, if this foresight is realized, tomorrow will be good. If this foresight is not carried out today in the Qom seminary and we are satisfied with the current situation; if we are content with just managing the seminary in a certain way; if we settle for this, tomorrow we will either have no seminary or a seminary in decline.

Today we are thinking about a day when our country will not have oil; energy, energy without oil. A country that does not have oil may not have any oil resources left in the world. The world is thinking about energy for that day. We are also standing here, facing the difficulties you see, to secure that future today. If we do not do this, when the day comes that oil runs out, we will not be here, but the negative effects of our actions will be felt that day. We will be responsible. This thought must be institutionalized in the seminary. Both the managers of the seminary, the Supreme Council of the seminary, the elders of the seminary, and the authorities must understand and pay attention to the fact that we must think today about the Qom seminary or Isfahan or Mashhad or other cities twenty years from now; we must think about thirty years from now. What does thirty years from now mean? It means a world that probably has no resemblance to today; in terms of the potential for influence, the potential for conquering hearts, the potential for conquering lands. Twenty years ago, this information technology that this dear gentleman explained so well here did not exist; it was something, today see what news there is!

When we think about today, we do not remain in a vacuum. Today in every home, in every school, in every corner, as one of the gentlemen said, perhaps in every village if we go, we observe something of information technology there. Does the seminary want to lag behind? Consider the next thirty years in the same way; of course with a greater acceleration. The acceleration of knowledge in these past twenty years will certainly be much less than the acceleration of knowledge and technological advancement in the next twenty years; in the next thirty years.

That day, various thinkers, different schools, deviant sects, and those with corrupt intentions may easily seize your classrooms, your schools, your children in your homes; and you may not be able to do anything. The seminary must think about that day. The responsibility lies with the seminary. The responsibility for the piety of the people lies with the clergy. The clergy is also born and shaped by the seminary. With this perspective, we must weigh the responsibility to understand the heavy burden that rests upon us. This is one point; the issue of foresight.

Another issue is that transformation must be managed. Dear gentlemen and sisters, transformation is inevitable. Transformation is the nature and tradition of divine creation; I have mentioned this many times. Transformation will occur. Now, let us assume a unit, an entity that does not submit to transformation; it is either going to die or become isolated. Either it will not find the opportunity to live in the tumult of transformed circumstances, it will be crushed underfoot and destroyed; or if it survives, it will become isolated. Like that forest man we read about in the newspaper today or yesterday - this one or two days ago - a person who went to the Mazandaran forest forty years ago and has a very weak connection with his outside environment; he becomes isolated. It is possible to go, it is possible to avoid transformation, but with isolation. If the seminary wants to escape from transformation, it will become isolated; if it does not die, if it survives. Of course, the essence of religion prevents death, but it will become increasingly isolated.

Transformation is certain, but it has two sides: transformation in the right and correct direction, and transformation in the wrong and false direction. We must manage that this transformation occurs in the right direction. This is the duty of the influential figures in the seminary. The managers of the seminary, the scholars of the seminary, and the experts of the seminary must have this as their goal. We should not flee from transformation. Now, you gentlemen have mentioned in the methods of teaching, in the methods of research, in the methods of acceptance, in textbooks; all of these require transformation. Do not say that ten years ago, fifteen years ago, this program was written. Very well, that program was for ten years ago; see what the completed form of this program is! Transformation means this; it means being up to date, moving timely, not lagging behind events. Of course, the seminaries have naturally lagged behind a bit in contemporary times. No one is to blame for this; because the emergence of the revolution and the speed of transformations that arose from this great electricity in society held everything back. The intellectuality of our society is also lagging behind. Our universities are also behind what they should be; the seminary is also behind; that is, in proportion to the transformation of our society, this great transformation that has occurred in all its surroundings and has affected deeply, we are lagging behind this transformation. The seminary is somewhat behind, but it can make up for this with the necessary speed and seriousness.

Transformation must be accepted and managed. We must be very careful. You see, here the issue of degrees was mentioned. I am one of those who have emphasized the independent degree of the seminary from the beginning, and I still insist on it. The degree; the seminary itself should grant degrees based on its own credibility, not based on the Ministry of Science; because the credibility of the seminary is deeper, more stable, and more important than the credibility of any ministry. With its own credibility, the seminary should grant degrees. Now, they can call the degree whatever they want. Some friends objected that why do you shy away from the name doctorate and master's degree and have called it level three and level four; I have no argument about these. They can sit and discuss these; whatever decision they make is correct; but I accept the essence of the degree, but degree obsession is the bane of the degree. If a student studies for a degree, this is a great flaw. This is the same middle line of transformation. This is managing transformation in the field of degrees. Grant degrees, but avoid degree obsession and degree fixation, which we have always considered a flaw of new education. This is one example.

The issue of textbooks that you gentlemen raised is completely correct. I remember in Qom - in one of my trips, I do not remember exactly when it was. One of the gentlemen said it has been ten years; I do not know. I thought it was three or four years - we discussed the issue of textbooks and changes in textbooks, and immediately the feedback reached me; the oppositions! - which of course I was not unaware of, I knew that some would oppose this issue - changing textbooks is necessary, and it must change; there is no doubt about this. The reasoning that one of our brothers mentioned here, I noted; it is a very sound reasoning that if we were not to change the textbook, we should have been reading the "Ma'alem"; why was "Qavanin" written? Why was "Rasa'il" written? Why was "Fusul" written? Why was "Kifayah" written? Well, this is correct; it is still the same now. The textbook must definitely change; something must be done so that the student’s concern is to understand the content, not just to understand the wording. There is no art in taking the wording in a convoluted way, or even if we do not take it convoluted intentionally, we should not be careless so that the wording becomes convoluted, causing the student to spend a lot of time on this. What kind of art is this? What kind of kindness is hidden in this? No, we should express the wording so clearly that the one who has the ability to understand the content can easily grasp it from the wording. The teacher should not have difficulty in conveying the wording and should only express the content.

Let us convert "Kifayah" into a new "Kifayah"; what is the problem? "Makasib" should not be underestimated, which in it the method of the Sheikh in expressing the content is always a back-and-forth of ijtihad; because it is the advanced course of Sheikh Ansari - "Makasib" should not be underestimated. Now, who is like Sheikh Ansari? So many have written "Makasib". This advanced course, which has now been compiled, is good for someone who has sat in the advanced course of the Sheikh; it constantly pulls the content this way and that, always innovating possibilities, but for someone who wants to learn jurisprudence from the text, no; it is not good; the student faces difficulties - let us facilitate it. Let them bring the Sheikh's content into another book, but straightforward and clear. Let them express the Sheikh's research in each issue beautifully, but let them be committed to what the Sheikh has expressed; let them express it in this new book. This will become a new "Makasib", which is necessary. This is my belief. Now, the officials of the seminary and the managers of the seminary and some of the prominent figures of the seminary may not like this and this work may not happen, but one day it will undoubtedly happen. Well, this is one side of the issue.

On the other side of the issue, we said that transformation must be managed. It must be ensured that the scientific substance does not become diluted, that the level of the Sheikh's content does not decrease, that the level of the content of Akhund does not decrease. The student should not find himself in a vacuum of knowledge regarding these foundations that today are important and influential elements in our jurisprudence and principles; the student should not be left in a vacuum. The expressions should be correct and good and in Arabic. I notice that some of the writings of the seminary have some shortcomings in this regard. A solid, robust writing that when it goes to all Islamic scientific communities - because it is in Arabic. Our scientific language is Arabic, and everyone can benefit from it - should be recognized as a prominent and distinguished work, without verbal, textual, and pen errors. Therefore, transformation is inevitable. Now, this was one or two cases of transformation; there are many more; many of them you friends mentioned in your statements, which I also approve of. This transformation must be managed. This is another point.

Now, in the field of organization, there are opinions. Friends have, of course, proposed that a charter be written, a system be written, a vision be written; it was in the statements of the gentlemen. All of this is good, all of this is correct; but none of these can be realized without effective management. The key to all organized positive actions that one can expect results from is management.

We must complete management in the seminary. Fortunately, in recent years, the discussion of the Supreme Council of Management and the discussion of the management institution in the seminary has been accepted and actions have been taken, and you are seeing its benefits and blessings. I learned tonight from the statements of the gentlemen that there are twelve specialized associations in the seminary; specialized scientific associations. This is very interesting. I did not know this: the scientific association of economics, the scientific association of psychology, the scientific association of men, the scientific association of history. Of course, we knew some of them. This is management. If there were no management, such a thing would not have happened, but what has been done so far in the field of organization and structuring in the seminary should not be sufficient at all. We have shortcomings. First, the Supreme Council - I do not know if the gentlemen of the Supreme Council are here or not? - must pay great attention to the issue of policymaking. The most important task in the initial and fundamental stages is policymaking in the seminaries. This policymaking has various dimensions. Do we not say we want knowledge to be produced and advanced, well which knowledge? What does the advancement of jurisprudence mean? What does the advancement of the principles of jurisprudence mean? What does it mean to advance? What is the direction of this advancement? These are all questions that require answers. The policies that are set in the Supreme Council address these questions; policymaking. A clear vision for the future of the seminary must be drawn. Just as a twenty-year vision was developed for the country, let us create a twenty-year vision, a ten-year vision for the seminary. This is the task of the Supreme Council of the Islamic seminary.

Well, when can the Supreme Council do this? When the esteemed members of the Supreme Council dedicate enough time for this work; when they are free; meaning that membership in the Supreme Council of the seminary should not be a secondary status alongside the main statuses. Well, you see how a university manages, or suppose that its policymaking body operates? The Islamic seminary of this magnitude - whether the seminary of Qom, the seminary of Mashhad, or the seminary of Isfahan - cannot be managed peripherally. They must dedicate time; this is one.

Secondly, they must have a very strong expert body. Fortunately, in our seminary, this expert body - you gentlemen; those who spoke tonight and many others who did not speak and perhaps many individuals in the seminary from these young and thoughtful scholars - we have. They certainly form a self-sufficient expert body. We do not need anyone else regarding seminary issues, and we can utilize these scholars. Of course, this expert body must work, must strive. This is one of the tasks that the Supreme Council can undertake.

In the field of organizing the seminary and structuring the seminary, alongside the Supreme Council, the issue of the management institution of the seminary is very important. There must certainly be a planning council for the seminary. The same was mentioned in the statements of the gentlemen that sometimes the programs are inconsistent. Or our sister mentioned that in the programs related to women, the programs are inflexible at different levels. This is completely a valid criticism. Who can address these criticisms? A planning committee that is aware and knowledgeable about modern planning advancements.

Today, planning is a scientific task; like other scientific tasks. It is not just an innate art and talent; although that is not without effect, but today it is a scientific task. Those who specialize in this work should be utilized; they should be present in that expert body, and they should plan.

One of the tasks that is necessary in organizing the seminary is statistical gathering, which I mentioned briefly in the midst of the friends' discussions. We do not have accurate statistics from the seminary. By extension, we do not have accurate statistics from the clergy in the country. The number of clerics in the country, their educational levels, their knowledge levels, their promotional capabilities, their influence in their environment; these are things that are not reflected in our statistics, in our information; we do not have statistical gathering. Statistical gathering is also a science. One of the tasks that must be done, and must start quickly and will take several years, but its blessings will be very great, is this issue of statistical gathering. We should gather statistics from the students of the seminary, from their levels, from their understanding of the lessons they have studied, their educational progress; we should have statistics to know what is under the management of the seminary and what it wants to work with. We also have this deficiency, and of course, then the issue of evaluation systems arises; this is also one of the things I mention in the context of organization.

One of the topics that I must mention, the issue of free thought, was in some of the statements of the gentlemen. Why are these free thought sessions not held in Qom? What is the problem? Our seminaries have always been the center and cradle of scientific free thought, and still, we are proud of it, and we have no parallel in non-seminary educational institutions, where a student can challenge the teacher, confront him, and the teacher does not sense enmity or malice from him. The student freely challenges, does not consider the teacher's feelings. The teacher is not at all bothered by this and is not upset; this is very important. Well, this belongs to our seminary. In our seminaries, there have been great figures who have traversed various schools of thought and methodologies in jurisprudence, as well as in some more fundamental issues; there were philosophers, mystics, jurists, and they lived and worked together; the history of our seminaries is like this. One had a scientific basis, the other did not accept it. If you look at the biographies of the great scholars, you will see this.

The late Sahib al-Hada'iq and the late Wahid Behbahani were opposites; both lived in Karbala; contemporaries, they debated with each other. One night in the holy shrine of Imam Hussain (peace be upon him), they started discussing a matter, and until dawn, these two clerics stood - now Wahid Behbahani was relatively young at that time, but Sahib al-Hada'iq was an old man - they debated! They debated with each other, they had disputes, but they were both there, both taught. I have heard that the students of Wahid - who had a strong bias against the Akhbaris - like Sahib al-Riyadh and some other students of Wahid, would attend the lessons of Sahib al-Hada'iq! This is how it was; we must raise our tolerance in the seminary. Well, one has a philosophical inclination, another has a mystical inclination, another has a jurisprudential inclination; they may not accept each other. A few months ago, I said in Mashhad that the late Sheikh Mujtaba Qazwini (may God’s mercy be upon him) had an anti-philosophy inclination against the philosophy of transcendent wisdom, the school of Mulla Sadra; he was very intense in this regard - Imam (may God’s mercy be upon him) is the essence and quintessence of the school of Mulla Sadra; not only in his philosophical aspect but also in his mystical aspect. Well, the late Sheikh Mujtaba not only accepted Imam, but he also promoted him while he was alive. He promoted Imam; he traveled from Mashhad to Qom to visit Imam. The late Ayatollah Mirza Jawad Tehrani in Mashhad was among the chosen and distinguished of that school, but he went to the front. They opposed the recitation of Imam's interpretation of Hamd that was broadcast on television; they told me themselves; both he and the late Mr. Morvarid, but they supported him. They were opposed in terms of inclination and methodology, but in terms of political and social interaction, they were familiar; they tolerated each other. In Qom, it should be like this.

If someone gives a jurisprudential opinion that is unusual, very well, you do not accept it; let a theoretical session be formed, and let five or ten scholars come and refute this jurisprudential opinion with reasoning; it is not a problem. A philosophical opinion is given in the same way, a theological and doctrinal opinion is given in the same way. The issue of takfir and slander and such things must be eliminated from the seminary; even within the seminary regarding prominent and great scholars; if a part of their words contradicts my humble opinion, I should not open my mouth to slander; it cannot be like this; this must start from the students themselves. This is something that can only be achieved through the students themselves and the establishment of free thought and free discussion sessions that we mentioned. This should be normalized in the seminary; in journals, in writings, it should be stated. If someone makes a jurisprudential statement, someone should write a treatise in refutation of it; if no one accepts him, let them write a treatise in refutation of him. Let them write, it is not a problem; let them have scientific discussions. In my opinion, scientific discussion is good.

Another issue is the social status of scholars and professors, which is also one of our problems. Now, some friends proposed that a scientific council be formed in Qom; that is, scientific councils for different levels, for different fields should be officially recognized so that when someone reaches a certain level, passes a test, he becomes part of the scientific council of Qom. This should be a title. Of course, I mentioned something similar to this to the esteemed members of the Society of Teachers a few years ago, that they should take a broader approach, but it seems that the form that was intended was not practically realized.

In any case, the work in the seminary has increased. What should have been done or has not been done until now and should have been done, or if it is not from the past, must be done from now on, is a hundred times more than what we have done in the seminary so far, and this hundred times can be accomplished; provided that you all are present, roll up your sleeves, you enter the field, each of you in whatever area you have an opinion and expertise, work in that area, and God willing, the management will utilize your strength.

Now, I have noted these proposals, some of which I have noted, but the entirety of these has also been recorded. I think it is very good; perhaps it is also necessary to compile the entirety of these discussions that were held here into a book and publish it; I think this is a very appropriate task. Now, one wishes that these be broadcast on television, but since I am not very familiar with the necessities and possibilities of this, I do not know how practical that work is; I do not mention that; that would also be good if it could be done; but at the very least, our friends here - whether in the office here or friends who are connected with the office in Qom - should sit down, extract these discussions, edit them, and distribute them. This alone will have many benefits and blessings; this is good.

Among the proposals that were made and I like and approve of, is that the managers of schools from all over the country - the schools of the religious seminaries - should hold a seminar, gather together, and share experiences; this is very good.

Among the tasks that I think are very good, some expectations from the Islamic government and the Islamic system were raised in various forms; well, some of these are currently not practical, until the seminary finds that cohesive center; meaning that the organization of the seminary is structured in such a way that the centrality of a manager who is a thinker and has control over affairs and is trusted by all, God willing, is completed and formed, then one can interact with him; because many of these proposals require the capacities and facilities of the seminary. Suppose they come to utilize the scholars of the seminary, to utilize the thoughts of the seminary; well, with whom, where, how? And work must be done; work must be done in the seminary, God willing, and of course, the results will reach those places, and the Islamic system is obliged to utilize the seminary and have this interaction; but part of the interactions mentioned is currently practical and possible.

One of the proposals that you gentlemen made and I approve of is the establishment of an educational institute for international propaganda. Of course, if I want to remember this correctly, I may have mentioned it about fourteen or fifteen years ago. At that time, one of the great scholars of the seminary, who today, thanks be to God, continues his blessed life, fell ill and went abroad - to one of the European countries - for treatment. There, young people and students and Iranians approached him, asking him to come and speak at this session, to come and give a lecture here. They kept this esteemed and respected gentleman for a month or more and he saw the needs. After he returned here, he requested a meeting with me and expressed his displeasure, saying, "Why are you not responding to these needs? Why are you not answering? There are so many needs." I said, "Well, we have done some work, but our hands are also empty; now this is the ball and this is the field. You go to Qom and plan a school for training religious propagandists for the world outside Iran, and I will cover the expenses - I said this just like that - I will bear all the costs. You build the school; I cannot come to Qom and build a school." He went and made some efforts, and I think an announcement was made in Qom that anyone who wants to participate should come here, and then it was forgotten! It has been forgotten until now. Do this work. This is a very good work; it is a necessary work.

Regarding the pulpit, which you gentlemen mentioned, this is one of my always recurring themes. Among the always recurring themes of our discourse is the importance of the pulpit and the training of preachers. Very well, this is the ball and this is the field. Go and get busy, plan, create a solid and reliable program for it, and start. Of course, there are many problems; now that you enter the work, the gentlemen will gradually become familiar with the problems. However, I believe that you can overcome all these problems with your youthful strength, determination, and faith.

O Lord! Make this session of ours a source of goodness and blessings for Islam and Muslims and the clergy. Whatever we said, whatever we heard, make it for You and in Your way. O Lord! Make us successful and capable in what You will question us about - "And make me act in accordance with what You will question me about tomorrow" - on the Day of Judgment. O Lord! Gather the pure souls of our dear martyrs, for all these successes and facilities that exist are due to their pure blood and their brave struggles and sacrifices, and unite the pure spirit of Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified) with Your saints and be pleased with us.

Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings.