Statements of the Supreme Leader at the Commencement of the Advanced Islamic Jurisprudence Class

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

At the beginning of my speech, for blessing and auspiciousness, I present a moral hadith: "Ali ibn Ibrahim, from his father, from Ibn Mahbub, from some of his companions, from Ibn Abi Ya'fur, said: I heard Abu Abdullah, peace be upon him, say: In what God Almighty confided to Moses, peace be upon him: O Moses, do not incline towards the world as the oppressors do, nor as those who have taken it as a father and mother. O Moses, if I were to leave you to yourself to look after it, then the love of the world and its adornment would prevail over you. O Moses, compete in goodness with its people and outpace them towards it, for goodness is as its name implies. Leave from the world what you are not in need of, and do not let your eyes look at every person captivated by it and left to themselves; and know that every trial begins with the love of the world. Do not envy anyone for their wealth, for with much wealth comes many sins due to the obligations of rights, and do not envy anyone for the people's satisfaction with them until you know that God is satisfied with them, and do not envy a creature for the people's obedience to them, for the people's obedience to them and their following them in falsehood is destruction for them and those who follow them."

The chain of transmission is incomplete, but apparently in hadiths that convey wisdom, ethics, and truths to humans, it is not clear that the incompleteness causes harm. It is not a bearer of a jurisprudential ruling that one would seek proof and say that one cannot act upon an incomplete report. These are truths that, when observed, one sees that their correctness, validity, and precision are inherent within them. It is evident that these are either certainly the words of the infallible, peace be upon him, or derived from the words of those great ones. Therefore, the incompleteness in the chain of this hadith should not create the slightest doubt or suspicion in accepting the content of this hadith.

Of course, aside from this incompleteness, the men of the chain are also of high and noble trustworthiness: "Ali ibn Ibrahim" and "Ibrahim ibn Hashim" are well-known. "Ibn Mahbub" is "Hasan ibn Mahbub Sarrad" and is among the trustworthy and great ones and, according to some, among the companions of consensus. "Ibn Abi Ya'fur" is the same noble man from whom this hadith is narrated: "By God, if you split a pomegranate in half and said this is forbidden and this is permissible, I would testify that what you said is permissible is permissible and what you said is forbidden is forbidden," and he is also the one to whom the Imam said twice in response: "May God have mercy on you." After his death, Imam Sadiq, peace and blessings be upon him, wrote a letter to "Mufaddal" in Kufa to give him the agency that "Abdullah ibn Abi Ya'fur" previously had. In that letter, several times after mentioning the name "Abdullah ibn Abi Ya'fur," the Imam says: "Peace be upon him!"

"He said I heard Abu Abdullah, peace be upon him, say in what God Almighty confided to Moses, peace be upon him." It is evident that the Lord of the worlds wants to convey the highest truths and wisdoms to His great and noble prophet. In this passage, the term "revealed" is not used, but rather the term "confided" is used. Perhaps this is because the Lord of the worlds is conveying a very important matter in the form of a whispered conversation with Moses, peace be upon him: "O Moses, do not incline towards the world as the oppressors do." "Incline" means a heartfelt inclination and spiritual reliance, which if we were to translate it into today's Persian, it seems that the meaning of "giving one's heart" is more appropriate. Therefore, it can be translated as: "Do not give your heart to the world as the oppressors have given their hearts to the world." If there is no giving of the heart to the world, a person does not oppress and does not harm the servants of God. Oppression indicates the ultimate inclination and desire for the world.

"And the inclination of those who have taken it as a father and mother." Those who have taken the world as their father and mother—meaning all their thoughts are of the world and they do not think of anything else and do not show inclination and desire for anything else—are like a child who takes refuge in his parents and does not think of anything else. "O Moses, if I were to leave you to yourself to look after it, then the love of the world and its adornment would prevail over you." "To look after it" is different from "to look at it." Looking at the world is not a reprehensible act; thinking about the world is reprehensible. O Moses! If I were to leave you to yourself to think about the world, then the love and beauties of the world would prevail over you.

I should note that in this hadith and similar hadiths, the meaning of the world is not the earth and its attachments and the development and attending to the affairs of the people and similar matters; rather, the manifestations of the world (wealth, status, and position) are intended, which a person wants for themselves. Therefore, whatever of God's blessings on earth and beauties and pleasures and livelihoods that return to the human soul and are wanted for oneself are considered "the world" in hadith expressions and are reprehensible. It is evident that the more a person thinks about and attends to the world, the more their desire and longing increase, and when they turn away from the world, gradually the love of the world also decreases in their heart. The intention of this narration and similar ones is not that a person should abandon activity and effort in life and sit in a corner of the house. Some have thought this way and for years—and some even for centuries—have pursued a wrong approach that has led to isolation and withdrawal from life's activities and efforts and have attributed it to Islam. Therefore, the meaning of the world is not this wrong interpretation.

"O Moses, compete in goodness with its people and outpace them towards it." Compete in goodness with its people. Competition means a desire filled with rivalry that a person develops for something. "And outpace them towards it," meaning seek to outpace everyone towards goodness. "For goodness is as its name implies." "Goodness" is like its name, good and commendable. Apparently, the intention is good deeds and public acts of kindness to believers and helping brothers and unity and worship of the Lord and asceticism in the world and other good qualities. The word "goodness" also has a comparative meaning that indicates being better. It says: good deeds are like their name and are better than anything else. The good deeds that a person performs are better than anything that comes to mind. If you visit the sick, if you do kindness to a believer, if you cooperate in matters, if you learn knowledge, if you are indifferent to the world, if you strive in the path of God or enjoin good and forbid evil, and if you worship God; all these are good deeds. These deeds are better than all the things that come to a person's mind, like wealth and children and status and other various values. Both the late Majlisi and the author of Tuhaf al-Uqul give several possibilities, one of which is this possibility. Other possibilities are given, but apparently, this possibility is certain.

"And leave from the world what you are not in need of." Leave what you do not need and is not among your necessities and is excess. "And do not let your eyes look at every person captivated by it." This phrase can be read in several ways: "And do not let your eye look," where the eye is the subject of "look"; meaning do not let your eye look. Or "And do not let your eye look," meaning do not show it to your eye. Or "Do not let your eye look," which is accusative by the removal of the preposition; meaning "Do not look with your eye" or "Do not let your eye look," meaning do not present it to your eye. "At every person captivated by it." Those who are captivated by the world and fascinated by it, "and left to themselves" and someone who has been left to themselves or to themselves and divine support and success have been taken from them, "and know that every trial begins with the love of the world," all trials begin with the love of the world. The reality is the same. When we look at the world, we see that throughout history the root of all trials and misguidance and places where truth and falsehood have been mixed is in the love of the world. There have been those who, because of their love for the world and position and status and love for family and friends, have started something and created a trial. Truly, this subject is one of those strange wisdoms. Wherever you look in the world, you see that it is the same.

"And do not envy anyone for their wealth." Do not envy those who have much wealth. This is one of those afflictions that some weak-spirited individuals experience in their lives, and they envy because of luxurious houses and abundant luxuries and many possessions! "For with much wealth comes many sins due to the obligations of rights." When wealth increases, rights also increase, and because of this, sins also increase. It becomes clear that when rights increase, a person cannot fulfill them; otherwise, if they could fulfill them, there would be no sin involved. This is if the wealth is acquired from lawful means. If it is from unlawful means, it will have a worse form. Of course, there is also a possibility that the hadith refers to the abundance of wealth through unlawful means; meaning when a person acquires wealth that is not through lawful means, they must have trampled many rights to acquire much wealth. "And do not envy anyone for the people's satisfaction with them." Do not envy someone whom people are satisfied with or have affection for. "Until you know that God is satisfied with them." If God is satisfied with someone, envy them; but if people have affection for someone and chant slogans for them and gather around them and show affection and closeness to them, do not envy them. What do you know; perhaps, God forbid, there is a flaw and corruption and defect in their inner self that makes God dissatisfied with them. At that time, the people's satisfaction will not benefit them. Truly, what benefit does the people's satisfaction—if it is even real—have? "And do not envy a creature for the people's obedience to them." If you see people obeying someone and accepting their orders and will, it is still not a place for envy. "For the people's obedience to them and their following them in falsehood is destruction for them and those who follow them." If the people's following of them—God forbid—is not in truth, it is a cause of destruction for themselves and those who follow them. God willing, God Almighty, for the sake of the infallibles, will keep us from becoming followers or leaders in falsehood and will not bring that situation upon us.

If this narration had no chain at all, its high wisdoms, which are without any doubt or suspicion, would be a guide for us. These instructions are divine and Islamic knowledge, and it is appropriate to adhere to them. The reason I chose this narration is that today our society is in a condition where it is necessary to read narrations of asceticism for it. In Nahj al-Balagha, much has been said about asceticism; but this does not indicate that asceticism is the highest duty of a person; no. In some places, asceticism is higher, and in other places, jihad and worship and the pursuit of knowledge are higher. It shows the position of the time, and in our opinion, today is a time when we must call society to asceticism; because it is moving towards wealth and wealth is increasing in the country, and it is a place where if some people are worldly, they can acquire wealth through various means and acquire and spend it "in a way that is not lawful," and if the accumulation of wealth is through lawful means, they may become captivated by the world and fall into the bad consequences of being captivated; especially in the seminaries and the area where the clergy and scholars and students and scholars live.

The matter I present to you today starts from obvious and clear premises and reaches an obvious and clear conclusion; but in my opinion—as a student and a responsible person in the Islamic Republic and as a believer in the mission of scholars in the affairs of religion and the world of people—this obvious conclusion from these obvious premises has not been acted upon as it should be. Of course, good work has been done: "And do not deprive people of their things." A person should not deprive those who have worked hard and done work of their rights. Truly, much work has been done; but what should be done is several times more than what has been done so far.

The first obvious premise is the statement of the need for the activities and efforts of the seminary. The reason for the activity of the seminaries, which today the most important and noble of them is the seminary of Qom and some other major seminaries in Iran such as the seminary of Mashhad and other places and, God willing, the seminary of Najaf (when it is freed from the ominous grip of the wicked and oppressors), is firstly the need of the Islamic government, which throughout history after the government of the Commander of the Faithful and Imam Hasan, peace and blessings be upon them, no government with these characteristics, relying on religious laws and regulations, has been formed until today. This is the first time that a government is formed based on the Quran and an Islamic society—with all the problems and efforts that this work has had and has—has been created. This divine system and government, for its operation, firstly needs Islamic knowledge and regulations. Secondly, in some places, it needs individuals to manage some of the affairs of this system, which the seminaries must provide for these two needs. Of course, the intention is not that all affairs or important affairs should be taken over by scholars; no. All believers and righteous people and thinkers and researchers are in their place. There are specialists for various tasks in the country who carry them out. Some tasks also exist that religious scholars must undertake; these individuals must also be trained by the seminary. So if the need for society and the Islamic government and its establishment is raised, the seminary must provide it. If a society becomes irreligious, it naturally does not feel the need for scholars; but when society is religious, it feels the need for scholars and teachers of ethics and religion and knowledge.

If in the past we had scholars who spoke or wrote or dispelled doubts and spoke of knowledge, today several times that number with high qualities are needed. Books and booklets and magazines and media are needed to take on this mission and write and speak about religion and knowledge and ethics. There are those who are inclined to study; they should use these. There are also those who benefit from the media; the media should use these as well. Religious scholars must provide writings related to Islamic knowledge, whether in the form of books and booklets or in the form of various magazines and publications, so that artists can, for example, make films based on them or create various programs.

The third need for the activities of the seminary is the need of intellectuals and youth. These are the groups that face doubts. Everywhere, the first audience of doubts are intellectuals and thinkers, who are often among the youth and thinkers and educated people. Many people do not encounter doubts. They have nothing to do with doubts. They have faith and live a good life according to their faith. Those who are inclined to study encounter the world and speak about the essence of religion and Islam and its knowledge and also the principles and branches and history of religion and constantly cast doubts. There must be those who dispel these doubts. Providing these individuals is the responsibility of the seminaries. Of course, those who are outside the seminaries may be able to do this work; but the main responsible party is truly the seminaries and religious scholars. These are the first ones who must dispel doubts.

The fourth need is the need of Muslim communities and newly converted Muslims. Consider how many people around the world have turned to Islam today; those who were Muslims but did not know Islam with its message of life and only knew it as a set of rituals and bowing and prostrating and sitting in the corner of the mosque, and those who were not Muslims before. Today, Islam is presented as a message of life and a response to social problems and also as a way to escape the problems of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries—which is about to dawn. They look at Islam with this perspective and turn to Islam. Today, in Western countries, including in America and major European countries, Islam is rapidly growing. This is not the claim of a preacher who has heard something and says it; no. I say this based on precise information that many individuals in Christian and Western countries have turned to Islam. They have recognized Islam and have questions about it and want to know this religion.

Young, pure, educated, talented, and excellent individuals from Europe who have converted to Islam in their own universities come to us and seek guidance on Islamic issues. Who should guide them? Who should go there and reside among them and teach religion and ethics? Who should send them books? Who should explain the issues to them? The answer to all these questions is related to the seminaries. Many non-Muslim communities have paid attention to Islam—even if they have not converted—but they want to know what Islam is that has set this great system in motion and formed a government and stood up to superpowers and fears no one and manages the world; a religion that has entered the field of life and the necessities and pressures and fears and tremors and weaknesses of other governments do not come to it. Who should explain this religion? Should we wait for the illiterate or those who have no knowledge of Islam and have known it from the mouths of others to go there?!

I knew people who spoke about Islamic issues with conviction and ijtihad. They did not know more than ten hadiths, had not read a book of hadith from beginning to end, and had not once gone through the Quran with contemplation; rather, they had heard things from the mouths of others and then applied them to their own minds and fabricated things about Islam! Should these people speak about Islam or the scholars of God and the scholars of religion and those who have deep dealings with religious matters and are experts and specialists in their work?

The fifth need is the need of the seminary for teachers and researchers and authors and experts in various fields. Thanks be to God, this matter is being fulfilled in the seminaries. Researchers and teachers and experts and great ones and mujtahids are ready to work; but if you look at the seminary twenty years from now, you will see that those who are present are few. Look at twenty years from now with a precise eye, see what we need; then you will see that the great ones who are present in the seminaries today are few in number. One of our most important needs is this. The seminaries must produce researchers and scholars with the intention of producing scholars to meet this need.

So, the first matter is to prove the need for an active seminary, and the second matter is that there has always been a motivation to oppose the seminaries. The Qajar kings were opposed to the scholars and seminaries and considered the seminary individuals as the army of the great scholars. They were opposed to the scholars because the scholars interfered in their affairs. If they wanted to sign the Reji contract and have relations with the English or if they wanted to marry two sisters, the scholars would not allow it and would stand against them. Later, during the Pahlavi period, the issue changed. From the time of Reza Khan onwards, fundamental motivations entered the work, and the West—especially England—intended to completely seize Iran. This seizure was either in the form of creating a truly English government—which they could not do—or in the form of establishing an Iranian government but with all its affairs in their hands. The second way was chosen, and the Pahlavi government was formed based on this decision, and Reza Khan came to power.

If you see that all the reputable people of Iran were opposed to Reza Khan, it is because he was a lowly, uneducated person who had never heard the name of religion and had not tasted its essence. He was raised in an illiterate, careless family far from religious knowledge, and when he grew up, he wandered among coffee houses and taverns and loafers. Reza Khan was not someone who had anything to do with religion. His temperament was ready to oppose religion—with the intention of overthrowing it. There are weak-spirited, ill-intentioned, and ill-disposed people who sometimes praise Reza Khan's so-called developmental works and, for example, say he built railways and established security! These people should be asked whether the construction of railways and the establishment of security were for the people or for foreign powers?! Who benefited from these so-called developmental works? In truth, Reza Khan was an agent whom the English brought onto the scene to disrupt the religious system in Iran. For this reason, in 1935, he banned the wearing of turbans and the presence of the clergy in society and disrupted the seminary system and forced the clergy into seclusion. When he left and his son—Mohammad Reza—came to power and took control of affairs, he had the same intention and pursued the same goal and path—albeit in more modern and advanced forms—and continued in this direction until the day the revolution triumphed.

The Pahlavi regime was overthrown; but the motivation for fundamental opposition to the seminary continues. The regime of the United States of America, which was behind Mohammad Reza from the coup of August 19, 1953, until the victory of the revolution and was active against religion, is today, through some of its agents—who may not even be aware themselves—engaged in belittling and insulting religion and religious scholars and seminaries. During Reza Khan's time, to discredit the clergy, he said: the clergy are freeloaders; meaning, for example, they do not do manual labor or administrative work, yet they continue to live. With his limited understanding, he thought that if someone did not engage in trade in the market or, for example, did not dig with a shovel and did not go to an office and did not find a job, they should not eat bread, and if they did, they were freeloading! Because he did not believe in the mission of religion, he said these things and did not believe in the work of a religious scholar.

Today, some people say the same thing in a different language. Those who teach people and work hard for them and make them religious and increase their guidance and provide the grounds for the realization of the noble verse "Guide us to the straight path," these are the people of religion and guidance and are considered guides on this path. They write books, teach lessons, work hard, and do work and earn a meager living. How much of the world do the students of the seminary enjoy? The salary of a capable student with a family in Qom—the highest of the seminaries—is not half the salary of a laborer who digs with a shovel. Their income is less than the minimum administrative salary. With this situation, can it be said that our clergy earn their bread through religion?! Is this not injustice and the denial of rights and unfairness? Our government is Islamic, and there is freedom of expression in it, and these words, which have been expressed out of unfairness, have been raised using this same free space.

Of course, I do not mean that we should respond to a word or dispute; no. The intention is that you should know that the motivations for opposing the seminary are many and widespread. Some of those who have such motivations do not even understand what they are doing. They do not have bad intentions, but they are not aware of the consequences of their words and actions. In the seminaries themselves, it has always been this way, and now there are motivations for weakening the seminary. A young student whose life in the seminary is not good is forced to turn his back on the seminary for a living. The seminary trains a person and develops their talent and brings them to scientific positions; then, when it is time to use them, they see that the door of a certain office or scientific center for teaching is open. They are forced to go there and engage in work. It cannot be said that this work is forbidden. After all, there is necessity and need, and some individuals do this work; but this work is turning one's back on the seminary. Of course, I do not mean those who take on a task for the system and carry it out. No; these should come and take on the assigned tasks. I mean those who turn their backs on the seminary and the clergy and do not perform religious work. So see that the motivations for belittling and weakening and insulting exist both outside and inside the seminary.

We are faced with those great needs and these destructive hostilities accompanied by plans and ill-will. What should the seminary do? The answer is that it should use the resources it has and build itself in the best and most precise way. Not a single bit of the seminary's resources, which are mainly human resources, should be wasted. Not a single hour of a student's or teacher's lesson should be redundant and useless and not aimed at those needs. A student studying in the seminary should move in the direction of meeting one of the needs and addressing one of the requirements; meaning, either for inside or outside, either for writing or for research, either for teaching or for education, they should prepare themselves. Thanks be to God, in recent years, very important work has been done in this area, and it is necessary to thank the High Council and the management apparatus of the seminary. In the seminary of Qom, much effort has been made and much work has been done; but what remains and has not yet been done is several times more than what has been done so far. This movement should not slow down; rather, it should gain more speed and steadfastness and accuracy day by day, and if work is proceeding incorrectly or slowly in one place, it should be corrected and accelerated.

The great ones who are at the head of the High Council of the seminary should look at the world scene and inside the country and see what needs exist and how these needs can be met and the individuals who meet these needs can be trained. If we need books, then we need authors. How is a good author trained? The method of their training should be included in the seminary's programs. If we want competent preachers—not in the number of five or ten or a hundred, but thousands of preachers—to be able to carry out these tasks in every part of the world; what are the conditions for their training? How and with what factors are these conditions provided in a person? These matters should be included in the planning. It should be examined which lessons are redundant and unnecessary so that they can be removed. The courses should be such that if someone can complete part of several courses, the amount they have completed is beneficial for them. The idea that we must necessarily keep someone in the seminary for twenty or twenty-five years is not the case. Some needs are met by staying in the seminary for four years. Some needs are met by staying for ten years. Others may be met by staying for fifteen years, and some may be met by staying for twenty years in the seminary. Why should we unnecessarily keep someone who can meet some of our needs with four or five years of study in the seminary for ten years? We should plan and bring people to this level. We should consider advantages and each person should be identified for what need they can meet.

The seminary should give certificates and attestations. I have said this point once before. The attestation of ijtihad is one of the things that has existed in the seminary since ancient times; today it is also a very good thing. Some gentlemen think that if we want to evaluate a student's lesson, we must say that this level of study in the seminary is equivalent to a certain university course—for example, a bachelor's or master's or doctorate. We do not need to do this. Seminary studies are one thing, and university studies are another. Of course, this may be necessary in its place. For example, this person may want to work in some administrative departments that require a certificate. Naturally, they need to know how much value this person's certificate has. But the issue of the seminary's need is beyond these. We need various types of clergy at different levels and with different specializations and abilities. Talents are different. Talents should be recognized, lessons should be studied, courses should be separated, and young scholars in the seminary should be employed; because many blessings will come from this group.

The seminary should work like a factory supplying the needs of society, continuously working and producing its product, which is the researchers and preachers and teachers and authors and various types of clergy. The seminary should plan and specify how many suitable preachers for different parts of the world and inside the country will be trained in five years. Also, in the field of Quranic issues and interpretation and other seminary sciences and also training teachers for universities and Islamic studies courses and also training researchers and authors to respond to and counter doubts, it should have organized and regular planning.

We hope that, God willing, God will grant success to the respected gentlemen and great scholars and that they will be included in the attentions and pure prayers of His Holiness the Remaining Proof, may our souls be sacrificed for him. God willing, the work will be done in the best way so that the seminary can quickly find the form that meets the needs of this time.

Thanks be to God, the Lord of the worlds