Sociology of Religious Scholars

Sociology of Religious Scholars
Sociology of the Clergy with a Liberal Approach
Philosophical, Collective Psychoanalysis of Clerics, and the Nature of Religious Science and its Production
(Peace be upon him)
Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Nekounam

Title: Sociology of Religious Scholars:
Sociology of the Clergy with a Liberal Approach / Mohammad Reza Nekounam.
Publisher: Sobhe Farda Publications, Islamshahr, 2014.
Physical Specifications: 294 pages.
ISBN: 978-600-7347-15-7
National Bibliography Number: 3443489
Dewey Decimal Classification: 301
Congress Classification: 1393 N 8 2 F / 606 HM
Price: 180,000 IRR

Preface

The Islamic Revolution is a unique experience among human revolutions. Its distinguishing characteristic is its dual nature: on the one hand, its leadership stems from a school of thought and culture rooted in divine prophets. The doctrinal leadership of the revolution can be considered the greatest historical experience. Its divine and prophetic leadership carries sanctity, purity, and grandeur, and its scope and magnificence are due to the Shiite religious authority and the loyalty to its school of thought. The other face of this revolution is the unique and exceptional personality of Imam Khomeini (RA). Thus, this revolution not only had a doctrinal leadership but also possessed a theoretical and ideological leadership, exemplified by Imam Khomeini. The Islamic Revolution is a nascent government in ancient Iran and still less than three decades old, a revolution with a central slogan of seeking Shari’ah-based governance grounded in Islamic law.

One of the essential sciences needed for managing a society emerging from the Islamic Revolution is Sociology, especially when the discipline is focused on the ancient Iranian society and, more importantly, when it aims at analyzing the society of the clergy. The significance of this science arises when the characteristics described for society are not narrowly viewed from a Western perspective, and the propositions, formulas, and tests of their validity are tailored to the Iranian social context. Additionally, sociology should be presented with a deep philosophical approach, seeking to explore its roots.

Sociology is both a contemporary need for religious seminaries and systems, as well as a science of intrinsic importance in itself. It is also a systematic and modern discipline that should embrace free philosophical inquiry—philosophy grounded in strong logic that is free from the fragmentation seen in Western sociology. The fragmentation in Western sociology often results from experiences rooted in disciplines outside sociology and the late-life reflections of scholars. However, the merit of some Western scholars is that they base their sociological studies on real societies, grounded in external empirical evidence, and adopt a realistic approach to communities, rather than an idealistic, mental, and detached view.

Despite this, Western sociology suffers from fragmentation, lacks systematic methodology, and often lacks proficient expertise in the field. Many Western sociologists, having no formal academic training in sociology, enter the field later in life, which diminishes the rigor and depth of their analyses. This results in superficiality and a tendency to fall prey to fallacies and distortions.

To succeed in sociology, one must be trained under a teacher from adolescence, following continuous exercises and assessments under supervision. This requires reforming the educational and developmental systems to identify talents and interests from childhood. Modern sociology, like any other science, requires focus and the avoidance of fragmentation and excessive diversification. It also necessitates efforts to find a logical framework for understanding society.

A philosophical approach to sociology provides another advantage by liberating it from the stagnation and imitation seen in Eastern sociologists, enabling sociology to rediscover its healthy path.

Indeed, Western societies may be facing a crisis of belief, but in Eastern countries, the dominance of imitation over scientific centers has prevented a “crisis of belief” from emerging. This issue is controlled in light of the harm caused by a culture of imitation. In contrast, Western countries, due to their scientific freedom and lack of access to reliable sources of correct knowledge and genuine belief, have experienced crises in identity and belief.

In our era, Imam Khomeini, through his courageous spirit, made an exceptional contribution by uniting the emotional forces of society and directing them towards a Velayat-based system, focusing on societal realities. However, the Velayat system requires precise design and cultural engineering. This structural and content engineering, based on religious documentation, will correct the movement of the Islamic Revolution and remedy the Islamic Republic system, not by initiating another revolution or disrupting the foundations established on correct principles.

The seminaries and the Shiite clergy constitute one of the most important scientific and spiritual communities, profoundly influencing political currents in Iran. In this book, we seek to subject this scholarly and spiritual community to the scrutiny of sociological experiences. Some key topics related to this community include:

• Genealogy of Religious Scholars, who are considered to be from the lineage of divine prophets.
• Epistemology of Religious Science, which focuses on understanding ijtihad, the sciences derived from clerics, and the specialized fields associated with them, emphasizing the distinction between religious science and religious craft.
• Analyzing the Public Acceptance and Social Authority of Clerics as custodians of divine propositions and their sacred, spiritual personalities rooted in traditional ijtihad and jurisprudence.
• Characterization of Pseudo-Religious Figures, such as those who engage in courtly or public roles, whom we refer to as “Akhund” in specific terminology. They form a distinct class from respected scholars and valuable seminarians.
• Widespread Social Engagement and the clerics’ extensive social roles, starting from reciting the adhan and iqama to new-borns, leading prayers for congregations, delivering religious speeches, conducting marriage and divorce rituals, collecting religious taxes, issuing religious rulings, offering counsel on critical matters, and guiding the community spiritually. This broad connection with the public is unparalleled, though some of these roles are diminishing in the present. The strength or weakness of this engagement is subject to political currents, technological developments, and shifts between government and public influence.

The sociological analysis of the clergy is complicated due to their profound connections with both religion and politics. It is not easy to theorize freely about this institution. However, any theorization concerning this sacred institution must be constructive, not destructive. One can only critique the structure of the clergy if they can offer a viable alternative, otherwise, criticism without constructive solutions is considered a betrayal. Those critiquing the clergy system must possess the ability to propose a new arrangement and gradually build a new model, as opposed to merely deconstructing and causing destruction without providing any productive suggestions.

Sociological analysis of the clergy requires mastery of both sociology and psychology. Sociology is essential for understanding and managing communities effectively. The West has sought to dominate this field and extend its influence in all aspects of society. However, Western approaches to sociology often impose a Western lifestyle framework on the world, with other cultures relegated to spectators. The true objective of sociology is not merely theoretical but also practical, enabling one to understand and guide human societies towards betterment, while respecting their unique cultural contexts.

Praise be to God, the truth is God’s

Section One: Sociology

The Concept of Society

It is important to be precise when interpreting the term “society,” as each word can only be used for a singular, true meaning. Furthermore, usage does not necessarily signify truth. The term “gather” refers to the concept of connection and relation. “Society” refers to being “connected.” This connection may be natural, as in the system of a forest, where each group of animals is provided with its own specific order, or it can be non-natural, stemming from the will of a particular group. A person who can connect with all phenomena possesses collective qualities and is capable of achieving completeness in all aspects, thus allowing him or her to engage with all things. Consequently, being part of a collective and having a population cannot be separated from being complete. A person who can be part of a community is capable of both self-improvement and improvement of others.

Definition of Society

In defining “society,” certain conditions must be included to ensure it encompasses all individuals, covering both small and large societies, regional and trans-regional communities, while preventing the inclusion of those that do not fit within the definition.

“Society is a living reality that results from the shared life of individuals who are of the same kind, having common needs, interests, and goals (especially desires). Its primary aim is the empowerment of securing each other’s rights—particularly the right to life—and fulfilling the needs for better survival, which is accomplished in accordance with accepted laws. These laws are voluntarily adhered to and involve respecting rights, defending these rights, and expanding and diversifying them.”

In summarising the definition, it can be stated as:

“Society is the result of mutual, systematic power emerging from the conscious, accepted connection of individuals who are of the same kind, having shared needs (especially responding to desires), and striving together to achieve common goals.”

Need: The Root of Social Formation

The formation of society originates from both emotional and material needs. An individual, who feels the need within his or her psyche, either for companionship with others or for material needs, will form a social gathering based on the extent of these needs. Therefore, the greater the needs of individuals, the more complex and stable the society becomes. The fewer the needs, the more primitive and superficial the society is, making it easier to abandon. In fact, if an individual ceases to feel any need for others, they can live in isolation. This indicates that human nature does not inherently make one a social being. The need for society and civilization is, therefore, an unnatural, secondary development arising from necessity.

This shared need can manifest in the form of religion, ideology, science, work, behaviour, gender, interests, emotions, periods, or regions. This reflects an external reality that exists communally among individuals. Thus, political, scientific, literary, religious, economic, and other groups (such as workers, teachers, traders, and others) who cooperate for their needs and interests under a shared law and system are examples of society, provided that their spiritual unity and communal bond are sustained. Otherwise, none of these groups, regardless of their size, can truly be considered a society, and they resemble a family where spouses live together but suffer emotional separation, with children disconnected from their parents.

Based on this definition, society must have certain characteristics, including that it should be living and sustainable, and that its members should share a common goal and work to protect it. For this to occur, each member must accept their respective role according to the necessary specialisation. Thus, mere residence in a region does not define society, as the bond between individuals and society is a spiritual one that can transcend national borders. The pursuit of rights and the fulfilment of needs enriches society, contributing to its growth. Therefore, the defining characteristic of society is its capacity for growth and development. If this development halts and stagnates, the foundation of society begins to erode and dissolve from that point.

The denotative meaning of the term “society” suggests a type of relationship and inclination, but its conceptual meaning is more specific, focusing only on conscious, voluntary relationships—which are unique to humans—excluding natural connections.

The Life of Society

The first attribute that is mentioned when discussing society or “people” (which are two aspects of an external phenomenon) is “life.” The life of society has indicators, including growth and fruitfulness, among others. Society is a living and active environment. Because society is alive, it undergoes transformation, growth, and even decline and retrogression. Society is not a conceptual or abstract entity; rather, it is a real phenomenon, a secondary intellectual concept in philosophy. As with society, all attributes assigned to it have real existence externally and are represented in the mind. For example, the attribute “open” for society has an external reality, and it is an attribute that applies to society, as does the attribute “closed.”

Society is a living phenomenon, and all attributes of living beings can be attributed to it. Society has the potential for growth, and if not properly managed, it can become ill, lose its vitality, and become corrupt. The diagnosis of society’s illness or its deficiencies, or even its indicators of health, lies in the hands of sociologists. The health of society is even more significant than the health of an individual, as diagnosing society’s illness is more difficult and less tangible. Furthermore, the treatment of society is more time-consuming, requiring multidimensional expertise, and its complexities make it hard to achieve the same outcomes as treating an individual. Some societal illnesses are deeply hidden and have no immediate visible effects, making it harder to diagnose and treat them. Hence, there is less sensitivity to their emergence, and the deadly consequences of these problems become apparent only after many years, revealing their destructive impact.

The Nature of Society

Society is alive, and its life is interconnected with the life of its people. Any attribute that exists in the people of society also exists in the society itself. Therefore, a religious and Islamic society is one in which Islam is alive and flowing among its people. If the content of the human forces of society is Islamic, then that society is Islamic. If not, building religious structures, promoting religious slogans, or performing religious rituals at the behest of the government (rather than by the will of the people) does not transform society into a truly religious one. Hence, any attribute that is genuinely alive in the people also exists in external reality and is evident in that society.

The Unity of Society and People

In defining society, we used the term “communal” to highlight the spiritual unity between society and its people. We stated that society is the essence of human groups, more precisely described as “the people.” People, in relation to society, are like a group of ten individuals; they are not just individual members of society, but rather parts of a holistic entity. Therefore, society is never defined as a mere collection of people, like a machine or a herd of animals, which may share natural instincts but lack the conscious unity of purpose. Just as every organism is not simply the sum of its cells but also has a collective consciousness, society is not merely the gathering of individuals; it is a unified, purposeful entity that imparts culture and life to all those within it.

Here is an academic British English translation of your text:

It should be noted that society is formed by human individuals, and its subject matter is the individuals themselves, not groups, populations, or institutions. Additionally, society possesses a conscious social existence, which cannot be described merely by the specific term “conscience.”

Furthermore, by “conscious communication,” the predominant and typical aspect of the individuals in society is meant, and this excludes those in comas, infants, and the insane.

It must be understood that “society” differs from “social gathering.” A gathering is a dissoluble combination and a type of meeting, such as gatherings or ceremonies, where some people come together, but it does not refer to society. Thus, using “gathering” in place of “society” is a misnomer.

Descriptive Definitions

Most of the definitions that have been proposed for society have a reporting or descriptive aspect, listing some of its characteristics and customs without clarifying the boundaries of society or providing a clear definition. However, if these definitions are considered from a descriptive standpoint, they can be considered accurate. Some examples of these definitions are as follows:

• Society consists of individuals who are connected to one another by traditions, customs, lifestyles, and shared culture, and each individual in society feels a sense of belonging.
• Society is a group of individuals who are somewhat systematically organized and have a specific way of life, with members viewing themselves as a unified whole.
• Society exists within a shared geographical space.

The latter definition limits society to nations, disregarding communities or other forms of collective organization.

Descriptive Definitions or the Final Cause and Purpose of the Formation of Society

These definitions either state the purpose of society’s formation — such as cooperation or power — or describe its active characteristics, like social cohesion, or emphasize the material or formal causes of society’s existence.

Sociological Definition

With the definition of society in hand, sociology can be defined as follows:

“Sociology is the ability to imagine and analyze the communal institutions of society and human beings of similar kind, recognizing the shared attributes and consequences arising from them, through a philosophical method and with scientific tools to determine their needs, authority, and stability.”

The subject of society and sociology is social phenomena, the core of which is the human group; a group that has come together through a shared institution to preserve a common attribute or to achieve a specific goal. Based on this, animals and other phenomena do not have society, and we cannot categorize society into two types — animal and human — simply because they live in organized groups or cooperate in a specific matter.

Of course, today some scholars use scientific tools to study animal groups and attempt to model some of their collective behaviors based on human societies. This is possible based on the shared animal traits found in humans, but it does not apply to the specific characteristics that define humans. Furthermore, humans should not be reduced to their animalistic aspects.

Sociology is a discipline that enables the sociologist to understand social realities — particularly people’s needs — and interpret them appropriately. It must be noted that both the sociologist and their understanding of society are shaped by society itself. The propositions of “sociology” come after the realization of society and the sociologist, in the mind of a seeker and aware of society, and are presented systematically and strategically as the science of “sociology.”

The sociologist’s mind must be properly engaged with the external phenomenon of society. To achieve this, they must philosophize among the people, not behind a desk at a research institution. Otherwise, their interpretations will be flawed. The sociologist must be with the people of the society they wish to speak about and translate their insights into scientific knowledge. If the sociologist speaks from a detached position and is both distant from the people and unable to oversee the society from above, they will be engaging in fantasy and painting an imagined society, not transcribing the existing one.

The sociologist studies the social realities. The human-centered social phenomenon that sociology investigates includes observable social processes and institutions or the manifest traits and intangible properties related to groups of like-minded humans — such as art, ethics, customs, and religions — where these manifest traits are the indicators.

The Contingency of Social Attributes

The sociologist investigates the apparent features and indications of society and its general attributes. This research might rely on tangible evidence or not, but if it does not align with tangible evidence, it requires specific justification. The characteristics that indicate society play a role beyond contingency in relation to social matters and provide the necessary system of contingencies for society, which may be subject to exceptions. These contingencies are shaped through cause-and-effect relationships, meaning that the content of societies can be changed by creating specific conditions and following a particular course. The sociologist identifies the shared, like-minded traits among members of society — with the individual distinctions being beyond their scope — in order to understand the characteristics of society.

Based on what has been said, sociology or the physics of society, involves both the study of the form or structure of society, which is its external shape (e.g., population concentration, dispersion, reasons for migration), and the study of social structures or the science of social anatomy, which explains the internal structure of society, its members, and the institutions and groups that constitute it (e.g., economics, politics). Additionally, it includes general sociology or introductory sociology, which addresses group behavior and the general principles of social life.

The Necessity of Philosophizing to Understand Society

In defining sociology, we incorporated a philosophical method because sociology, in its essence and identity, is a branch of philosophy. Although sociology can adopt various historical, empirical, psychological, religious, or conventional perspectives, such approaches only cover one aspect of society. Sociology must be considered as a scientific tool for understanding society through a philosophical lens, as it deals with the identity and roots of society, rather than specific attributes exclusive to non-philosophical scientific approaches. Sociological approaches that disregard a philosophical method in understanding society fall into superficial analysis and logical fallacies.

Although sociology is a branch of philosophy, it is not an idealistic philosophy detached from people and the realities of life. Rather, it is a philosophy that, while academic, engages directly with the tangible experiences of society.

To fully grasp philosophical sociology, one must understand the sociologists’ society, their theories, and the evolution of their data, alongside the scientific ranking of each. Sociology has come to the conclusion that this science, when separated from philosophical inquiry, lacks satisfactory testing and has stagnated, veering towards the philosophy of science.

Philosophical sociology is also important because it prepares the foundation for understanding society’s fixed traits, distinguishing them from its variable attributes. With surveys, individual measurements, and scale ratings, one can assess probable changes, determine when changes begin and end, and accurately measure their likelihood. The philosophical perspective understands the shared traits among humans and their distinctions.

Since anthropological reasoning understands the common institution shared among all humans — recognizing their needs and desires — it can move from studying the individual and observing the changes in them to studying the social phenomenon, predicting its changes, and drawing a true conclusion with universal validity. This pertains to shared traits related to the human institution, not to those arising from upbringing or the influence of the environment and educator.

The philosophical approach to sociology does not categorize it as either Islamic or non-Islamic; rather, science is science, and the labels of Islamic or non-Islamic are merely contextual and based on the origin of the knowledge.

The philosophical approach to sociology does not address the actions and behaviors of individuals within society (which would be better termed “behavioral sociology”) but instead traces the societal institution by understanding the human institutions that underlie these behaviors. These roots may be religious, philosophical, conventional, traditional, or ordinary, and they can predict the decisions of society in a systematic and methodical manner. A philosophical sociologist produces propositions based on the roots and standards, whereas empirical, reductionist sociologists study society based on its contingent characteristics. The difference between a philosophical sociologist and a reductionist sociologist is like the difference between an architect and a builder: one designs skyscrapers with specialized attention to detail, while the other builds a simple structure with general knowledge.

A rational sociologist who understands philosophical reasoning and upholds the principles of reason can theorize and transform philosophical sociology into science. By mastering this methodology and applying its techniques to the community, they can turn it into an applied skill.

The engineering of philosophical sociology provides the standards of sociological science and paves the way for understanding societal realities.

It is true that “philosophical approach” is involved in sociology, but this should not be confused with what is termed “philosophy of sociology,” which is a second-order epistemological inquiry. Sociology is a first-order knowledge system, directly concerned with society as it exists in the world, whereas the philosophy of sociology deals with the relationships between the propositions of sociological knowledge and primary knowledge. The method of first-order knowledge is defined by the discipline itself in its approach to the world, while second-order knowledge involves logical analysis and historical investigation concerning the problems within the discipline itself.

Philosophy, in a rational sense, strives to make the phenomena of the world understandable and organizes them hierarchically. The philosophy of sociology seeks to make sociology understandable, to identify its subject matter, define its general characteristics, uncover the relationships among its issues, and organize its data in a rational manner. Understanding the appropriate method for each discipline and its methodology leads to the advancement of knowledge, improves judgment, and provides more accurate criteria for evaluating and analyzing the subject matter of the discipline.

In this book, we adopt a philosophical approach to society, focusing specifically on the role of religious figures. We aim to examine their emergence and the traits that arise from their identity. Unlike some Western sociologists, we will not take a one-sided and fragmented view of society; instead, we will construct the identity of society step by step. This distinguishes our approach from Western sociological writings, which reflect the urgent, industrial, urbanized, and fragmented realities of modern society, necessitated by the industrial revolution, urbanization, generational divides, and the rise of leisure as a societal issue. In contrast, philosophical sociology focuses on the shared traits and needs of human beings, in this case, religious figures, as subjects of study.

A philosophical approach first identifies the common human traits and needs and then addresses the variable needs arising from the changes in the surrounding environment. To understand any society with its unique characteristics, one must begin with fundamental issues and trace the roots of understanding to comprehend the structure of society — a process that is natural and logical.

In incorporating the “philosophical method” into our definition of sociology, we do not mean to imply that the sciences interfere with one another, ignoring their specialized boundaries. Every science has its own method and methodology. However, philosophy stands out as the mother of all sciences, setting the boundaries for every discipline, which must adhere to them; otherwise, they risk error in their own specialized methods. Philosophy intervenes in the methodology of science, and anyone unaware of it is bound to make cognitive and epistemological mistakes. Philosophy defines the subject of each science, its boundaries, and the general methods, and as such, all sciences rely on philosophy, even if they reject the framework of philosophy within their own fields. Yet the subject and method of each science remain within the purview of that science itself. Philosophy guides the sociologist, shaping their mind and helping them avoid wrong paths, so they can accurately navigate the process of understanding society. It is the philosopher’s task to prove whether society exists externally, and the sociologist relies on them for this scientific inquiry, as they cannot conduct it alone. The sociologist’s method of scientific inquiry is ultimately defined by philosophy.

In philosophical discussions, we have provided an exact definition of philosophy, and we have significant disagreements with popular philosophical norms. These issues and criticisms will be addressed in the philosophical discussions. One of our main critiques of mainstream philosophy is its excessive idealism and detachment from the tangible phenomena, events, and lived experiences in society that can be understood as a whole and are not limited to minor details that philosophy does not address.

The primary role

Critique of Certain Definitions of Sociology

The aforementioned explanation clearly reveals the shortcomings in some definitions of sociology that consider the entirety of society and its historical transformation. Sociology, by its nature, is not concerned with historical transformations whose time has passed and which are now dead; the study of the dead pertains to history, whereas society is a living entity, and the subject of sociology is the living human phenomenon — either in its present life or as a being that once lived. These definitions confuse the “history of society” with the “historical society”. While history can indeed be a tool for understanding society — particularly when it pertains to the roots of the society under investigation — it is not the primary subject of sociology. For example, consider the following definition:

“Sociology is the science of the general laws of social phenomena, which are the outcome of historical processes and complex social realities that are taken in aggregate and systematised into a set of general laws.”

Beyond the aforementioned issues, this definition falls short in identifying the subject matter of sociology and in its conceptualisation of society. The true subject of sociology is human groups and the affairs related to them — not merely social phenomena as abstract interactions divorced from humanity. This neglect of the human being — particularly the living human — is influenced by the period of industrialisation, during which humans were reduced to tools in service of an industrial society. In contrast, the human being is the manager and shaper of society, whose vitality and identity is central to the vitality and identity of society itself.

Critique of Relational and Institution-Based Definitions

Some definitions of sociology focus on internal relationships among human groups and the actual interactions between individuals, such as:

“Sociology is the study of human behaviour and conduct, and the nature of mutual relations among human beings.”

This characterisation, with its emphasis on social psychology, defines sociology as the science of social relationships, granting primacy to the individual over society. However, the role of individuals in societies varies and is relative, as previously discussed.

Some have confused one of the roles of the sociologist — namely, to understand and analyse the structure and goals of human communities and their growth and development — with the definition of sociology itself. Definitions such as “Sociology examines social interactions” rightly identify the human being as the subject of the field. However, these definitions tend to ascribe primacy either to the individual or to society as a purely material and natural construct, neglecting the spiritual or metaphysical dimension of their interrelation.

These definitions predominantly focus on reciprocal relationships between individuals, often prioritising emotions and behaviour. On the other hand, some characterisations lean toward institutional approaches, granting primacy to social structures. For example:

“Sociology is a science that endeavours to understand and interpret human social action in order to causally explain its course and outcomes.”

Similarly, the following definition reduces sociology to the study of a mere social phenomenon:

“A social fact or phenomenon is any established or unestablished mode of conduct capable of exerting an external constraint on the individual.”

This definition grants sociology a form of disciplinary independence and treats social reality as an object-like entity, asserting that a social situation can only be explained by another social fact.

Among all these definitions, it is correct to assert that the human being should be the core of sociological inquiry, and that social institutions ought to be viewed as instruments in the service of humanity. However, in the systematic and institutionalised framework of the Western world, the individual becomes dissolved within social structures and systems. Human dignity and the position of the individual are thereby undermined, and the person becomes an instrument in the service of capital, economy, and politics.

Sociology in Service of Capitalism

The Qur’anic worldview places all non-human phenomena under the authorised service of the believing human:

“And He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth — all from Him. Indeed in that are signs for a people who reflect.” (Qur’an 45:13)

Western sociology, however, has theorised in the service of capitalism and economic cartels, constructing analyses and frameworks to secure power and wealth for a specific elite. In doing so, it has reduced the human being to a tool entranced and subdued by the spell of the system, viewing humanity as an instrument to serve capitalistic goals. The deeper one penetrates into the layers of economic cartels, the clearer it becomes that human dignity is increasingly marginalised. Thus, when their interests dictate, they do not hesitate to initiate wars in various regions, sacrificing thousands of innocent lives to the flames of their destructive desires.

Western systems, aided by scholars and intellectuals, have monopolised the definition of “human” for the political and economic elite, often not even affording such a designation to the general Western populace. While Western citizens may still value their humanity on a personal level, they remain trapped in a complex web of systems and structures that deprive them of autonomy, leading to a form of existential alienation and nihilism. This systemic dissolution of the individual results in human exploitation, whereas the purpose of society ought to be the fulfilment of human needs and the improvement of human life — not the destruction of human identity in service of the elite’s greed.

Such definitions of society are hypocritical: although they purport to be centred on human groups and individuals — and some even claim that the individual is the fundamental unit of sociological reality — the actions of Western leaders and governing systems show that their belief in “humanity” is merely superficial, lacking genuine commitment to human dignity or communal welfare.

Critique of Thought-Centred Definitions

Some thinkers have identified shared ideology as the defining feature of society, stating:

“A society consists of a group of individuals sharing similar thoughts, whose relationships are based on mutual understanding.”

This definition, however, suffers from reactivity and lacks comprehensiveness. Not all societies originate from ideological homogeneity; rather, such uniformity often develops after a society has already formed, as it matures and its communicative capacity grows. Cultural homogeneity is typically a product of time and interaction, not a precondition for the emergence of a society. Otherwise, culture could not have been institutionalised within the social structure.

Sociologist: A Specialist, Not Merely an Observer

Although every individual possesses some level of understanding about the society in which they live — perhaps even capable of offering detailed descriptions — such knowledge alone does not suffice to bestow the title of “sociologist”. To be considered a sociologist, one must possess certain distinguishing features: deep social experience, the ability to penetrate the layers of society, and the capacity to comprehend its guiding structures through philosophical insight and scientific tools.

The History of Sociology

Sociology has two major historical phases: ancient/classical sociology and modern sociology. Between these periods, there was a lengthy interregnum. Sociology remains a relatively young science and, arguably, has not yet achieved full maturity. Nonetheless, it has advanced to the extent that over fifty major subfields can now be identified — the most recent concerning virtual and cyber societies.

The first human society mentioned in the Qur’an was composed of wicked, bloodthirsty beings capable of all forms of corruption. These are referred to as “Nasnās” (proto-humans), from whom no substantial records remain. According to Islamic belief, the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him), who was created without procreation, was appointed to prophethood within such a society.

At present, sociology is largely in the hands of the Western world, where it has been institutionalised and developed. Although it began with figures such as Plato and Aristotle, and was later taken up by Islamic scholars such as Al-Farabi, it entered a period of decline and only re-emerged in the West from the late 18th century, notably through the work of Auguste Comte. Despite the significant Muslim population worldwide and their extensive territorial presence, the Islamic world has not produced prominent contemporary sociologists. This absence is largely due to a withdrawal from social sciences by both Shia seminaries and Sunni communities — a neglect whose adverse consequences are becoming increasingly evident.

Measuring and Scaling, and the Power of Estimation in Understanding Society and Identity

The measurement and scaling process only holds power in estimating the recognition of individuals within society and their identity, as defined above, based on thresholds. In this context, governments and those in power can intervene in “identity,” but not in its essence, rather in its necessary aspects. For example, the belief in God and religiosity exists in the identity of all human beings and societies. However, rulers and monarchs, by leveraging this innate characteristic, either introduced themselves as representatives of God on Earth or even as God, legitimising their despotism with a religious veneer and portraying despotism as an inherent part of human religiosity. On the contrary, divine prophets, in their missions, injected teachings based on the original nature and endeavoured to return humans to their authentic essence, safeguarding the divine nature against those who sought to distort it.

The Theocentric Nature in All Humans

The theocentric nature exists in all humans; however, in Iranians, it is derived from a pure and untainted source, making their belief in God stronger than that of other nations. The closeness to this divine nature, while a unique trait of Iranians, has always been prone to the danger of being corrupted by superstitions introduced by power and wealth. In contrast to people of the Hurhuri disposition, who do not even submit to the true requirements of original nature, let alone gravitate towards superstitions, Iranians’ inclination towards true theocentrism poses the risk of becoming tainted by superstitions. The clerical community, in order to protect the Iranian people, must recognise the importance of identifying and eradicating superstitions and consider removing the residues imposed by tyrannical kings and the periods of Taqiyyah and exile as a critical aspect of their educational programme. They must systematically and evidentially combat those residues.

Despotism and Hypocrisy

Unfortunately, the despotism resulting from the spread of tyrannical monarchs has become normalised in our country, with individuals in positions of power using it as a tool within their domain, and suddenly accusing others of tyranny. This behaviour has become so widespread and accepted that it has even ensnared some nobles, let alone those who show defiance. Moreover, in any environment where despotism is entrenched, an unfortunate birth occurs—hypocrisy. Despotic environments inevitably give rise to hypocrites. Despotism, by necessity, produces hypocrisy without fail.

The Historical Process of Iranian Society

The historical trajectory of Iranian society has recorded common characteristics, with worship of God being one of the most significant. This characteristic has shaped the entire structure of this society, influencing its morals, behaviours, customs, and traditions. Alongside worship of God, there have always been religious custodians in this country. When these custodians were prophets of God or of their lineage, they guided Iranian society back to its original nature. However, when deceitful charlatans took on the role of religious custodians, they led the people into idol worship, fire worship, and other such deviations, especially at times when keeping fire alight was a difficult task. When the religious custodians became worldly and aligned with the royal court, they spread superstitions among the noble and simple people.

Despite the intelligence of Iranians, who accepted correct propositions, and the soundness of their innate nature, coupled with the fact that Iran was not a fertile region and its people were always engaged in work to meet their basic needs, the core tenets of religion were less prone to distortion by delusions, religious fabrication, and superstition. This is why religion in Iran has rarely experienced multiplicity. However, the despotic rule of the monarchs always hindered the flourishing of the true Iranian nature. Psychology also tells us that wherever despotism prevails, duality and hypocrisy—simply put, “making space”—become inseparable necessities. For this reason, hypocrisy is the result of despotism.

Religion and Taqiyyah

Although our people are religious, not irreligious, and they respect their innate nature, pursuing the inner call to spirituality and divine matters, with common inclinations like warmth and affection, the environment in which they have lived for over two thousand five hundred years under the despotism of monarchs cannot be ignored. It is impossible to overlook the inevitable result of despotism, which is hypocrisy and coldness, just as religion, in an environment of oppression and despotism, has suggested Taqiyyah. Of course, Taqiyyah differs from hypocrisy in its essence, but both are necessary for protection from the harm of despotism.

Despotism spreads in societies suffering from ignorance, where their academic centres are incapable of producing true knowledge and enlightening the populace. This inability could be due to the dominance of the ruling regime, which denies these institutions the freedom needed for the dissemination of knowledge, or due to the weakness of these institutions themselves. Whichever it is, despotism will prevail, and with despotism comes an inseparable consequence: hypocrisy. Oppression is the offspring of ignorance, and its result is the emergence of the deadly disease of hypocrisy and the growth of hypocrites and double-faced individuals. If people are not free in a country, resorting to secrecy and hypocrisy becomes the best way to preserve their limits and identity.

Despotism and Tyranny in Non-Islamic Societies

Despotism and oppression are characteristics of societies that do not have an Islamic government, for Islam is inherently incompatible with oppression. It is impossible for an Islamic society to be governed by despotism. Therefore, people in non-Islamic countries, who live under oppression, are, in fact, acting according to their rationality when they resort to Taqiyyah, not hypocrisy. The difference between hypocrisy and Taqiyyah lies in the fact that hypocrisy relates to personal and psychological deficiencies, whereas Taqiyyah arises from the failings of the ruling regime, which leads people to conceal their true identity, not their internal weaknesses. If the ruling regime lacks the knowledge and ability to govern the country properly, it creates an oppressive environment to hide its inadequacies and maintain its rule. However, if the rulers have the necessary awareness and piety, they will always preserve their open-mindedness, interact with their people with openness and generosity, and grant them freedom.

The Religious Identity of Iranians

When sociologists study a society like Iran, they find religious devotion as an inherent aspect of the society, manifesting in all social behaviours throughout history, both before and after Islam. This genuine religious devotion, rooted in human nature, is particularly pronounced in Iranians. The authenticity of their religious devotion has made their faith a gift of loyalty, and their nature has been predominantly intertwined with affection for the Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Prophet) and their leadership. Although Islam entered this land through the Sunnis and their rulers’ authority, the people, from the very beginning, gravitated towards the Ahl al-Bayt, and resisted the power of the Caliphs to the extent they could. Eventually, during the Safavid era, Shi’ism became the dominant faith of the people, bringing them closer to their original nature. However, royal despotism imposed upon the Iranian identity remained until the Shah’s regime was overthrown by Imam Khomeini. Yet, the culture of despotism, as a dark legacy of the monarchs, has not fully left the collective psyche of Iranian society, and its cure requires long-term policy strategies.

The Identity of the Arabs

The Arab despotism under the Caliphs initially sought to eradicate Iranian culture, especially its language, by replacing every Persian word with an Arabic one. However, while Iranians resisted this oppression, they fell under the internal despotism of Iranian kings, who were primarily warriors and generals, without valuing culture or Iranian identity. Their internal despotism infiltrated Iranian culture to the point where few scholars bowed to or accepted the ideas of other scholars, and each one held their own theories as the only valid ones. The despotic, individualistic policies of the rulers led to the promotion of a scholar-centric approach, rather than a systematic, logical understanding of knowledge.

Some Sunni scholars, especially those supported by the ruling court, tried to impose the Arab-Islamic culture of the Caliphs onto the Iranian people. Some of the remnants of these impositions remain in Iranian culture. However, the Iranian identity resisted some of these superstitions and did not accept them, particularly in regards to the Arabic language, which was the language of religion. While most people accepted it with love, it was primarily the traditionalists who resisted. Eventually, the Safavids removed the Sunni-dominated Islamic system and established Shi’ism with the influence of the Safavid mystics. The Safavid rulers promoted the holding of mourning assemblies and sermons. The Safavid regime’s Shi’ism led to the complete departure of Sunni Muslims from central Iran, and they settled in the border regions, where they were incompatible with the Safavid culture, which they viewed as colonial and despotic.

If we wish to discuss Iranian identity — that is, the inseparable traits of Iranians — the foremost of these is religiosity and respect for their innate inclinations, an inclination that has the colour of guardianship (wilayat). Different lands exhibit varying degrees of receptivity to guardianship. Among these, the land of Iran holds a distinct characteristic. This land, long before the advent of Islam, when the world was small, and throughout times when it expanded and will continue to expand in the future, has always maintained this quality, and guardianship will remain inherent in the soil of Iran. Iran is the cradle of guardianship, a place that will continue to nurture many scholars. The blessings of this land are indebted to its guardianship, although it suffers from the dryness of certain prevailing ideologies that marginalise and isolate the rightful possessors of guardianship and true knowledge. This land, while nurturing the rightful possessors of guardianship, also bears its antithesis, bringing great loss to the oppressors. The soil of Iran’s receptivity to guardianship has caused even the Zoroastrians and the People of the Book residing here to be inclined towards guardianship and love. In this regard, it must be said that some who are deemed corrupt and have migrated or fled Iran to other countries — as referred to in the narrations — are considered ‘oppressed’ (mustadh’af). Their internal guardianship has not been actualised. A government of free thinkers can educate such individuals, awaken their inner guardianship, and instead of turning them into enemies, win their friendship. In this way, under the magnetic influence of the system and its financial capabilities, the brain drain will decrease.

The people of Iran are guardianship-oriented, as they have emerged from a land that embodies guardianship. Apostasy from religion will never emerge among them. Conversely, if anyone opposes their religion or uses it as a tool for worldly gain, aiming to exploit their sacred and spiritual spirit for political manipulation, they will be despised by this nation, and their end will not be good. The sin of such deceitful schemers is so grave and overwhelming that they will be disgraced and cast into the infernal pit, alongside the enemies of guardianship. Of course, the policies of kings, despotism, and the cultural invasion of the West may lead to some disillusionment, but these disillusionments are found among the class of the oppressed (in the terminology of the guardianship doctrine). If their inner being is examined, there is no apostasy within them, and they may embrace another religion, even a spiritual one, but they will not become wholly disillusioned or atheistic.

The true identity of Iranians is religiosity. However, this true identity has always been under attack. The despotic kings, for two and a half millennia, theorised their despotism under the guise of priests, magi, and court clergymen serving the unjust caliphs, and despotism became a necessity of their identity.

The greatest harm in despotic societies — those accustomed to and believing despotism is necessary — is the habit of deep-rooted hypocrisy. A society is healthy when it eradicates the root of hypocrisy (despotism). The specific trait of a despotic society is hypocrisy. If a society is caught in despotism and hypocrisy and cannot fight them, it will decay. The powers in such societies easily change hands, as the individuals in such societies possess a remarkable ability to align with the ruling power. They have become accustomed to obeying whoever holds power and taking from those who are weak and fragile. Power transitions in such societies are easily made between the “wicked state” (dawlat la’imah) or a closed society and the “noble state” (dawlat karimah) or an open society. The central point for the growth of any society is to remove despotism and hypocrisy from it, and the clerical community can only assist the Shi’ah if it creates a free society, free from hypocrisy, for both Shi’ah and non-Shi’ah peoples. With the eradication of despotism and hypocrisy, the path to unleashing talents and raising the level of knowledge and eradicating poverty is paved. A society that is infected with hypocrisy will move away from scholarly critique, and whatever actions are taken by those in power and the perpetrators of despotism will be regarded as right and praiseworthy. The foundation of hypocrisy lies in the idea that whatever the seat of power does, it is lauded. A society that is devoid of criticism and the ability to engage in scholarly debate no longer offers a space for the growth and flourishing of talents. For the clerical community to completely eradicate despotism, it must recognise all the branches and manifestations of despotism and directly engage in fighting these manifestations and scientific efforts in this field.

The Pseudo-Religious Aspects Arising from Despotism

One of the branches of despotism is the pseudo-religious obligations that are not part of the religion but have found their way into it. This necessitates the removal of such adornments. This is the first duty in combating despotism, which only the clerical community can undertake, as no other scholarly institution is capable of assisting the clergy in this matter. This task is the unique responsibility of the clergy. Only this institution can state the final word on the removal of these pseudo-religious practices, as its scholarly capacity, ijtihad, and commitment to justice, coupled with its divine virtue — which allows for the cleansing of adornments — are ingrained in only some of the graduates of this scholarly institution. For example, one of the religious ideas that embodies despotism is expressed in the following verse of poetry:

“God steers the ship where He wills, even if the helmsman is dressed in rags.”

God created humans free and with free will; however, they must strive and struggle to achieve their desires. God has not bound them or set a limit for them. Humans, both in the realm of good and evil, have no fixed position or boundaries, and they are infinite. As long as they are alive, they have the capacity for change and transformation, and they cannot be confined to a particular state, unless they cease striving.

If a society becomes tainted by hypocrisy or intellectual weakness and loses its capacity for critique, such texts will be praised and lauded at countless conferences.

Despotism: The Root of All Problems

The root of all the problems in society is despotism. Despotism breeds a multitude of both minor and major problems, the worst of which are hypocrisy, deceit, and pretence. If the centres that disseminate despotism in society are eliminated, society will regain its spiritual blessings, purity, and virtues. Hearts will find serenity, and chests will become sincere. People will shower each other with waves of compassion, kindness, and grace. Otherwise, if despotism persists, thoughts will become tired and hopeless, hearts broken, minds restricted, and the spirit and kindness of the people will fade. The wall of resentment and malice, built by the hands of despotism, separates the sense of closeness and unity among people. If the wall of despotism collapses, the gentle rain of affection, kindness, purity, and light will fill the air, dissolving the distances between people and bringing life and vitality back into the community.

The Fallacy of Attributing Characteristics to a Community’s Identity

In discussions about identity, it is common for some to mistakenly attribute the characteristics of a community’s condition to the community itself. Even though the community is the subject of these characteristics, the description belongs to the condition of the community’s context, not its true identity. For instance, it has been said that the Iranian community is religiously-oriented, which is true, but neither Zoroastrianism nor Sunni Islam forms the essence of Iranian identity. What shapes the identity of the Iranian people is their innate religious disposition and their search for God. As discussed earlier, guardianship is an inherent gift, not an acquired trait, and it is embedded in the essence of Iranians, reflected in their natural disposition. The religious devotion of Iranians is of a guardianship nature, not a caliphal one. In times when Iranians were subjects of Sunni rule, religion was imposed upon them in an authoritarian manner, and through forced education, they distanced themselves from their original nature. Yet, this guardianship nature caused them, across all periods, to have a profound love for the Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Prophet) and to rise against the governments imposed by the caliphal regimes, which adhered to Sunni doctrines. Iran is a religiously-oriented region, and any government that disregards or manipulates the people’s beliefs is destined for failure. This is because the guardianship religion is the essence of the Iranian nation’s identity.

Although the kings and rulers of Iran exercised power over the people for a long time, the acceptance of the monarchical regime was never a part of the Iranian people’s identity. Such a regime did not flow in the veins of the Iranian people. This misconception was eradicated by Imam Khomeini, who removed the two-and-a-half-thousand-year-old monarchy, freeing the people and bringing them joy. The last monarch of the Pahlavi regime tried to deceive the public by presenting himself as the divine representative of kingship, but Imam Khomeini shattered the foundations of this regime, leading the people to independence, freedom, and the Islamic Republic, not through supernatural events, but through the continuous grace of God.

Likewise, Westernisation and the dominance of Western technology in this land do not imply that Western culture is integral to the Iranian identity. The Iranian identity is rooted in a guardianship-oriented religion, not in the acceptance of Western governmental systems or industrial advancements. However, those who seek to manipulate the Iranian people’s characteristics, like Mohammad Reza Shah, at times attempted to use religion as a tool. Similarly, dictators like Reza Shah, due to their ignorance, tried to suppress religious practices and ban religious gatherings. Some individuals, in the name of religion, rose to power, much like certain military leaders during the periods when the Sunni rulers dominated Iran. On occasion, kings turned to religious scholars for support, as seen during the Safavid period, where they sought the legitimacy of religious authority. Yet Imam Khomeini decisively ended these collaborations, toppling both the monarchy and the clerics who were aligned with the Pahlavi court.

Critique of Confused Identity

When someone does not possess a clear understanding of the identity of a society or misinterprets it, their understanding of the public and their ability to identify needs and methods of social provision, as well as their grasp of the values of management and its methodologies, becomes flawed. One such example is the article “Confused Identity” which examines the confusion in identifying Iranian identity. This article claims that Iranian national identity has been shaped by the traits of monarchy—which are still deeply embedded in the culture of society—and the characteristic of a Western identity, which especially became prevalent after the Constitutional Revolution.

A sociological examination of Iranians shows that neither the oppressive rule of kings nor the dominance of Western technology and knowledge have any bearing on Iranian identity. Both of these characteristics have infiltrated Iranian identity from the outside; much like other societies have been influenced by these two powers. For example, even today, in an era of civilization, modernity, and post-modernism, British society still bows before the Queen. The Queen symbolizes both the union of the eight countries that make up the British Empire and the hub of Western thought and culture. However, neither of these, in themselves, form the identity of British society. Rather, British society embodies the necessity of the reign of this power and culture, enforcing its authority through legal systems.

The authority and dominion of kings are unrelated to the identity of the society and its people. One should not directly attribute such circumstances to the people, especially when one lacks expertise in understanding society, thereby tarnishing the noble face of the Iranian people with false, unscientific claims. The acceptance that the public had towards kings was a matter of necessity, born out of ignorance, weakness, and despotism—similar to how Pharaoh humiliated his people to command obedience. People are only accepting and loyal to competent managers, not to those who come to power by force or through political manipulation. Tyrants who maintain the weakness of their subjects to ensure obedience are like professional horse riders who do not feed their horses well. The horse becomes weak if overfed, losing the ability to gallop quickly. Similarly, the people of this country desired to live, but, seeing no productive way to protest, they had no choice but to submit to despotic kings. Likewise, the West’s dominance over our country, through its technologies and advancements, comes from its import-based system and has no connection to Iranian or Islamic identity. While the lifestyle of Iranians has been shaped by imported technologies, this system of dominance, like the influence of monarchs, does not permeate Iranian identity. In contrast, religiousness is deeply rooted in the nature of society. Technologies can indeed be part of a religious culture, but monarchism and Westernism should not be equated with religiousness or considered part of Iranian identity. Just as in no country has religion been removed from the identity of its people—though alternatives may have emerged—people, when exhausted by everything secular, will return to religion and develop a collective expectation of the Hidden Imam (may Allah hasten his reappearance).

The Taboo of Divine Kingship

It should be noted that kings, for their legitimacy, sometimes presented themselves as the representatives of God on Earth and, at times when they were bold and empowered, even pushed God aside, claiming to be the deities of their nations. In our own nation, there were people in the past few decades who believed that kings did not need to adhere to religious duties because they were the “God on Earth,” and it was the common people who should adhere to religious laws. These beliefs are not related to Iranian identity. To gain sanctity during certain periods, kings even bestowed the title of “prince” on the descendants of saints, placing the guardianship of shrines in the hands of their own aides—just as some today turn into “aazazadeh” (children of influential figures) and engage in corruption. However, princely titles and aazazadeh status are not part of Iranian identity. These are attributes created by those in power, who conveyed the notion to the public that no resistance could stand against their authority, especially when they framed it as a taboo and designed a divine kingliness for the monarchs.

Religious belief and faith in God are intrinsic to Iranian identity, but monarchism, which spread superstition and the commercialization of religion, was an unhealthy weed growing beside the beautiful green meadow of faith in God. Those who sold religion used people’s innate spiritual needs and misled them with hypocrisy, feeding the masses with lies in place of true religion.

Section Three: Sociology of the Clergy

Religious Science Production

The first prominent characteristic of the Shiite clergy is that they descend from the lineage of divine prophets. They hold the position of interpreting the comprehensive religion of Islam, with its finality through the noble Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), in the form of producing religious science, religious leadership, and guidance for Muslims. The propagation of Islam, with its various faces, emerges from this significant trait.

What places the clergy in the lineage of divine prophets is their jurisprudence (fiqh) and ability to independently deduce religious rulings. Religious jurisprudence has two fundamental pillars: first, ijtihad (independent reasoning), and second, justice. The clergy’s role in relation to the people manifests in issuing fatwas (religious rulings) and religious scientific statements. The production of religious knowledge should not be limited to religious laws and jurisprudence alone but should include Islamic knowledge fields such as mysticism, philosophy, theology, and hadith, all of which are considered a part of jurisprudence and ijtihad. The social functions of the clergy are sequential, where one function leads to another. All these functions stem from ijtihad, justice, or in other words, from the ability to produce religious knowledge.

The position of the clergy in the production of religious knowledge, as well as their historical role in various fields like culture, law, and literature, distinguishes this community. Understanding the culture of religious seminaries enables a clear understanding of the Islamic Iranian culture, as they are the source and foundation of this culture. By understanding this culture, one can identify the culture of even the most remote regions of Iran, including border villages.

The clergy, through ijtihad and justice, inherit the divine position of the prophets. The link between the clergy and the sacred law (shari’ah) is expertise and ijtihad, which, when coupled with justice, fosters trust and paves the way for their acceptance among the people. It is this ijtihad and justice that makes the clergy the trustworthy religious leaders of the people. On this basis, if one of these two pillars, expertise or justice, is broken, the clergy’s role in preserving religious trust diminishes, and they fall from grace, becoming irrelevant and unworthy of public attention. We hope this expression, which is used due to the importance of the subject, is not misunderstood, as it refers to those who consider themselves as representatives of the infallible Imams (peace be upon them) and divine saints during the era of occultation. This position is so crucial that even the smallest error can turn someone into a morally corrupted entity, weakening their connection to the religious community and leading to a rejection of their authority.

Ijtihad and the ability to theorize and produce knowledge, coupled with justice, when presented to the people, forms the foundation for their trust in the clergy. The clergy’s influence and authority in society are rooted in this trust. Therefore, the clergy’s entry into society is through their expertise in issuing fatwas and their capacity to produce religious theory. A society will have general approval for the clergy only if they diligently uphold the foundation of their institution, which is the production of knowledge and theory. If the clergy fails to establish and maintain a leading role in Islamic and human sciences, addressing scientific needs within these fields, their social influence and popularity will fade, leading to their decline.

The Link Between Scientific Principles and Sacred Qualities

Scientific production is linked to the “sacred qualities” that make the knowledge “religious” and grounded in divine truth. The connection between scientific principles and justice—justice that reflects the sacred and spiritual standing of the clergy and their religious authority—forms this link. Knowledge must be anchored in sacred qualities to place the scholars in the lineage of divine prophets. Only then does produced knowledge become religious, connected to the divine law. Without this, religious statements are merely skills, and the speaker can only talk about religion, but their words cannot be considered religious and linked to divine truth.

The clergy, through their religious expertise, can gain social authority. Religious expertise is a true combination of scientific principles and sacred qualities, and expertise, when coupled with spirituality, enhances the clergy’s acceptance among the public. Ijtihad, grounded in justice, is what shapes the clergy’s sacred status and spirituality, and on its own, justice and sanctity do not make someone a specialist or exempt them from following the teachings of others. Similarly, if a just scholar forgets or fails to exercise ijtihad, they must follow the guidance of other scholars, as their own justice will no longer suffice.

The integrity of the clergy lies in the correctness of their scientific expertise and the justice of their rulings. Each of these two pillars can be damaged, and an incompetent or unjust individual might be presented as a scholar.

The trust that the people place in the clergy is based on their religious expertise and justice, which forms the enduring foundation of this community and guarantees its survival. Without this foundation, the clergy would have no rationale for their social presence, as their religious and spiritual base rests on these qualities. The trust placed in the clergy by the people is divine in nature and must not be treated as just any form of trust, such as that between close colleagues or parents and children; rather, this trust is rooted in the dual pillars of ijtihad and justice, which transform a religious scholar into a translator of divine revelation. All other qualities attributed to religious scholars stem from these two foundational attributes.

Teaching, preaching, and judging all follow from the clergy’s position in ijtihad. A fatwa is a general statement, whereas judging involves applying that statement to specific cases.

Comprehensive Ijtihad

In today’s complex systems of management, achieving the quality of ijtihad, in addition to possessing sacred qualities—which we will discuss—requires awareness of several areas of expertise, including social sciences, psychology, religious economics, and economic management. The precedence of these fields over jurisprudence is a matter of practical necessity, not foundational priority. Therefore, jurisprudence is superior to these other disciplines, as a jurist, in issuing fatwas for society, must first refer to society, understand the issues at hand, and then issue a ruling.

The survival and popularity of the clergy depend on the production of scientific theories, summarized in one word: “ijtihad.” This ijtihad, however, should not be limited to the traditional understanding of jurisprudence but should encompass all branches of human knowledge. Furthermore, this ijtihad must be based on justice, sanctity, and spirituality so that the produced knowledge becomes religious and can be attributed to divine law.

The Genealogy of the Clergy

The religious movement, led by the clergy during the era of occultation, has always faced opposition. This opposition has either embraced a rationalistic approach, claiming that the world operates independently of God, or rejected the existence of God entirely, considering the universe and human existence as products of human intellect. The opponents of religion have, in recent centuries, turned to collective rationalism, embracing elections and laws based on the majority’s decision, and resolving conflicts by majority vote. However, the clergy, adhering to a divine system of revelation, considers only divine law valid and regards laws as legitimate only when they align with the teachings of shari’ah and are based on the process of ijtihad.

The God-Centered Piety through the Lineage of Divine Prophets and Revelation

Divine piety has reached humanity through the line of the Prophets of God and, subsequently, through the Fourteen Infallible Ones, all of whom possessed absolute infallibility. It is important to note that the Prophets and their successors are all among the friends of God. They are primarily the saints of God, and the roles of prophecy, mission, and succession are conferred upon them thereafter. They are the friends of God in the sense that their created nature is oriented towards divine proximity, and they are established in closeness to God, sustained by His special grace. The more this proximity increases, the greater their authority and power of sainthood become, granting them a status of “from Him,” without the influence of any human aspect. This closeness leads to a harmonious relationship between them and God, and in proportion to their sainthood, divine knowledge, power, and other divine attributes manifest within them. Just as proximity to fire transmits heat and contact with water leads to wetness, closeness to the Divine causes the manifestation of divine qualities in the saint. Because of their closeness to God, those possessing sainthood are granted the ability to carry divine revelation and maintain infallibility in receiving, preserving, and conveying it.

These matters are well-established and not subject to dispute. Our focus, however, is on the fact that the clerical community belongs to the lineage of the Divine Prophets and their successors and inherits from them. Inheritance cannot occur without a connection and likeness. This likeness cannot pertain to revelation, infallibility, prophecy, succession, or miracles, as these have been closed off with the doctrine of the finality of prophethood. Rather, this likeness can only exist in the foundational aspect that made the Divine Prophets prophets and their successors successors, which is sainthood. This is the inheritance passed down to the clerical community, aligning them with their spiritual ancestors. The lower form of sainthood is called mālikah qudsī (holy virtue). This path is open to attaining closeness to God, advancing the cleric not only to the rank of spiritual likeness with the Prophets and their successors but also to divine proximity.

The holy virtue, and in its higher form, sainthood, bestows upon the cleric a spiritual likeness to the Prophets. This likeness is attained through ijtihād (juridical reasoning), a lower form that combines knowledge, justice, and power. Knowledge replaces revelation, justice replaces infallibility, and power replaces miracles, albeit in a reduced form. What has been stated pertains to the foundation of this discourse.

The Inheritance of Knowledge and Justice in the Clerical Community

The clerical community, which considers itself to be from the lineage of the Divine Prophets, claims inheritance in the fields of knowledge and justice—replacing revelation and infallibility. The intellectual expertise of the clerics is referred to as ijtihād, and a specialist in religious studies is called a mujtahid. Based on the descent of knowledge and justice from revelation and infallibility, they maintain a form of temporal sainthood for those mujtahids who meet the requisite conditions. A qualified mujtahid is referred to as a faqīh (jurisprudent). Their expertise lies in extracting the meaning of religious law. They are the interpreters of divine commands and are responsible for deriving the divine will in any matter, which is called a fatwā (juridical decree) if issued in a general form. A fatwā expresses the fourfold duties of the one obligated (the mukallaf). When the mukallaf adheres to the fatwā, they are considered a muqallid (follower). Thus, taqlīd (imitation) involves an unknowledgeable person referring to a religious expert and acting upon their specialized opinion.

The Continuation of Ijtihād during the Time of the Awaited Imam

Although faqāhat (jurisprudence) involves interpreting the law and striving to understand the intent of the Divine Lawgiver, this scholarly expertise remains applicable not only during the period of the occultation but also during the presence of the Infallible. This is evident as Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) instructed some of his learned companions to issue legal rulings for the people. The community always requires the expertise of mujtahids, and the presence of the Infallible does not make the community independent of the scholarly expertise of the mujtahids. Although the advent of the Imam is not expected for thousands of years, the clerical community must be well-organized for the prolonged period of occultation. This necessity negates the requirement for establishing the most learned (a’lam) in the context of taqlīd unless the most learned is self-evidently determined.

Moreover, the Infallibles instructed their learned companions to issue fatwās for the people, not to demand that their words be blindly imitated. This signifies that they should interpret and explain the religion in the best possible way, based on their understanding, while ensuring their interpretation is true to the spirit of the Shari’a. A sincere interpreter is someone who has both a logical understanding of religious interpretation and adheres to justice, without introducing personal desires, selfish ambitions, or demonic whisperings into their work. A person with mālikah qudsī (holy virtue) is capable of self-restraint and high moral standards, enabling them to offer truthful religious explanations free from personal bias. This sincerity is a prerequisite for the mālikah qudsī, which is essential for the mujtahid to avoid misinterpretation and deception.

The Faqīh as a Saint

Sainthood is a divine gift, and it is possible for a person to be spiritually devout and undergo rigorous exercises, with much worship, but not be granted sainthood. Therefore, there are faqīhs who are spiritually devout but do not possess the inner spiritual power of sainthood. Such individuals are faqīhs who, although they may be fully devoted to God, do not necessarily possess the mālikah qudsī—the inner sanctity required for true spiritual power. This inner virtue, which is an essential condition for ijtihād, is a divine bestowment and cannot be acquired merely through study or training. In the case of the faqīhs, their moral excellence and ability to maintain purity and self-control are what grant them their spiritual status.

The mālikah qudsī signifies moral purity and the ability to protect oneself from sin in accordance with the level of expertise required for ijtihād. These individuals, although devout, may not claim any spiritual or supernatural powers, and their sainthood remains confined to their ethical and scholarly expertise.

The Relation of the Clerical Community to its Lineage: Ijtihād and Justice

The clerical community’s relation to its lineage is shaped by ijtihād and justice. Ijtihād is the intellectual power to derive legal rulings, and its inner capacity is such that it cannot easily be lost. In contrast, justice is more fragile, and even a minor sin can cause it to be lost. The strength of ijtihād ensures that, even without justice, a scholar cannot imitate another; they would not be qualified to act as a reference for others. Furthermore, if someone possesses justice but lacks ijtihād, their claim to justice is invalid. Such a person cannot claim the authority to issue fatwās or to guide others in religious matters. A person who is not a mujtahid but claims to be one is akin to a thief who steals knowledge and falsely claims it as their own. This is particularly dangerous when such individuals alter divine rulings and spread them as their own, for they lack the ability to carry out proper ijtihād and are thus unqualified.

Religious Understanding, Derived from the Method of Divine Prophets: And its Relationship to the Knowledge System of the Present Era

Religious understanding, derived from the method of the divine prophets, follows their knowledge system and is fundamentally different from the contemporary educational and instructional system found in academic centers.

Just as the divine prophets establish a selective and bestowed system, wherein they are chosen individuals who have attained divine grace and special favor from God, so too is ijtihad—a specialized expertise of the religious community—a concept that involves a core characteristic known as the “Divine Inner Virtue” (Malakah Qudsiyyah). This divine virtue is a bestowed, grace-driven element that cannot be acquired merely through effort and study; instead, the process of acquiring it only sets the stage for receiving this special divine mercy, without necessarily establishing a permanent or essential connection. Its manifest sign is the ability to produce new scientific knowledge that no established science can oppose, and its consistency with its own valid data is accepted.

Those who are destined to reach ijtihad through the Divine Inner Virtue are God’s chosen individuals in every era. It is not the case that anyone can simply achieve the rank of scholarship or ijtihad. Sometimes, the spiritual and righteous actions of generations—such as the prayers and purity of one’s ancestors—accumulate over centuries, making one of their descendants deserving of the divine grace that leads them to become a scholar. God, being a skilled reckoner, imparts the desire for religious learning into the heart of a youth and selects them to bring them to the Divine Inner Virtue through His special favor. It is not that the scholar of the Divine Virtue has consciously sought it, but rather it is God’s will that selects these divine saints one by one, not in groups, and each is chosen by God’s wise hand for the critical task of ijtihad.

The Divine Inner Virtue is an innate, God-given capacity that cannot be cultivated through mere learning. It is not something that can be acquired or compensated for through effort. The individual must possess the spiritual qualities embedded in their lineage, genetics, environment, time, place, and other factors, which, when nurtured under the guidance of a skilled mentor, allows them to attain this Divine Virtue. It is through maintaining piety that individuals attain spiritual elevation and knowledge, as stated in the Quran: “And fear Allah, and He will teach you.” [6] The Divine Virtue is neither a learned nor a taught concept; it cannot be obtained simply by reading or attending courses. One must have this divine ability by God’s grace. A mentor and their teachings merely polish this hidden treasure, but do not create it. The selection of students should be in the hands of experienced mentors who can identify this innate potential and recognize the natural dispositions of individuals.

Although academic religious studies are aligned with seminary teachings and share common concepts, the academic system is not focused on mentorship and does not nurture divine prophets. If seminaries deviate from a mentorship-based system, they will eventually resemble the fate of universities and other scientific research institutions. The goal of seminaries is to produce scholars, and a scholar is from the lineage of divine prophets. What links the scholar to the prophets is the Divine Inner Virtue that helps them produce knowledge and engage in ijtihad. This virtue can only be attained in a mentorship-based system. The schooling system is similar to the scientific system of the divine prophets, which has led to the misconception that the current religious system is a continuation of the prophetic tradition. However, this is not true; the vital element of that system—the Divine Inner Virtue—is not incorporated into the current system. There are scholars who have memorized all the verses of the Holy Quran but are merely holders of memorized information. However, the ability to produce religious knowledge is not based on memorization alone, but rather it is derived from attaining the Divine Virtue. What scholars who are centered on memorization and information say is not considered the viewpoint of religion or the intent of the legislator unless they follow the path of imitation and do not claim religious ijtihad, but rather wish only to be religious propagators from whom the holders of the Divine Virtue continuously derive knowledge.

The university system, which is an imported product of the West, has turned all human sciences into mere skills and treats knowledge as a mechanical entity that can be memorized and stored in the mind. As a result, those who engage in this mechanical approach to knowledge, which is reduced to information and memorization, have dry and sterile minds. If religious knowledge is only about skill and memorizing information, it lacks the transformative power and is performed for others, on others. In contrast, religious knowledge, for the true scholar, is a process of introspection and inner transformation to produce knowledge for their own practice.

Religious knowledge production involves an inner explosion and spiritual transformation. However, those engaged in the mechanical approach to religious skill see it as mere analysis, devoid of the connection to the world of spirituality and love. They are focused only on tests, examinations, and research.

The recall of mental information lacks the creative power of knowledge and is reduced to mere reporting of information. The accumulation of such information becomes like a lock on the heart of those who claim to have knowledge, preventing the light of the Divine Inner Virtue—which brings forth the ability to create knowledge—from shining. This system does not only fail to align with the teaching system of the divine prophets, but it also contradicts and hinders individuals from pursuing religious ijtihad. Knowledge gained through this system remains at the level of skill and cannot lead to true religious insight.

Collecting knowledge that is mechanical in nature and devoid of divine light acts as a veil, rather than a means of reaching the Divine Virtue, increasing pride, arrogance, and spiritual blindness. True knowledge is that which is granted by divine grace, and the ability to engage in ijtihad allows for innovation and creativity in knowledge. This is the key difference between seminaries and universities or other research institutions. Seminaries should produce scholars who resemble divine prophets and who are capable of reviving the divine inspirations and revelations that flow through the Divine Inner Virtue. Instead of creating mere specialists who approach religious knowledge as a mechanical skill, seminaries should foster individuals who can engage in genuine spiritual transformation and produce true religious knowledge.

Religious knowledge is never available for purchase or manipulated through monetary gain. However, religious skill can be bought, and one may hire someone to teach it. In the school of religious skill, one can learn religious knowledge simply by attending classes, even if they have no deep relationship with their teacher. In such a school, every student is accepted, and there is no real selection process; the goal is simply for everyone to learn literacy and knowledge in a general, accessible manner. In contrast, religious knowledge, which is dependent on the Divine Inner Virtue and ijtihad, is a private matter, a unique calling for those chosen by God. Only those with the ability to engage in ijtihad can walk this path.

Religious skill, though it may serve as a topic of study, reduces religious knowledge to a mechanical skill, transforming it into a lifeless corpse devoid of spiritual vitality. Religious skill may enumerate spiritual stages and make them academic, but those who are only knowledgeable in the skill, without experiencing or progressing through those stages, may become the most fearful and weak individuals. They may possess all the theoretical knowledge but lack the true essence of spiritual knowledge.

Divine prophets never made their divine revelations into a school subject or reduced them to a mere skill. Instead, their disciples were empowered to produce knowledge and test it within themselves.

In conclusion, we have highlighted the distinction between religious knowledge and religious skill, emphasizing the former’s importance and its role in the spiritual community. While religious skill can serve as a starting point for acquiring knowledge, it cannot replace genuine religious knowledge, which requires the Divine Inner Virtue and the ability to innovate and create knowledge.

Knowledge as the Power of Creation and Innovation

Information is of the nature of concepts; however, knowledge, as described by scholars, is the ability to create, innovate, and, to use the terminology of jurists, the power of ijtihad and discovery. Knowledge is a light with which one can reach the discovery of the known and bring forth a new result.

The science of logic classifies knowledge into two types: conceptual and propositional. However, concepts themselves are not “knowledge” but “information.” Therefore, this division is incorrect. The foundations and preliminary steps of ijtihad, since they are entirely based on concepts, do not belong to knowledge. They are merely techniques, and knowledge can only be applied to the production of ijtihad. Simply accumulating information, memorising facts, and repeating the opinions of others does not produce the ability to deduce or engage in ijtihad. Someone who has memorised vast amounts of information and recites it during lessons or sermons is a “memoriser of information,” not an “innovative and creative scholar.”

To cultivate the ability for creativity, innovation, and religious ijtihad, one must engage in continuous exercises under the guidance of an experienced teacher, so much so that they attain purity and clarity of heart, allowing them to master their mind and control their soul. Only such a person can, through healthy concepts and without the intervention of imagination, reach sound scientific conclusions and possess accurate and truthful knowledge.

Knowledge brings certainty and power, whereas information is accompanied by weakness, suspicion, or doubt. Information is like a crystal-clear pool of water, which, if a small amount of dye is added, becomes discoloured, and even the slightest impurity renders it polluted. Information is like this; it can be ruined with a mere hint of doubt or uncertainty. However, knowledge is like a mountain, desert, or sea—no matter how much it is traversed or tainted by the sludge of doubt, it cannot be polluted.

Unfortunately, the current curriculum of seminaries is based on directing students towards accumulating information, without providing a proper foundation for the bestowment of ijtihad power.

The core of study in seminaries must focus on the ability to generate and create. This power of creation and innovation is what can transform seminaries into true centres of knowledge, distinguishing them from mere repositories of information and memorisation. Seminary teachers and the educational system must focus on embedding the ability to generate ideas in their students and make this the cornerstone of their work. The scientific problems of society and the seminaries will never be solved by focusing on memorisation and information. In fact, these problems will only increase over time, especially as the establishment of permanent online platforms makes access to religious knowledge easier for the general public. People will increasingly turn to these resources for information, something that most seminarians cannot compete with in terms of memory retention. What makes a student a student is their ability to explain and analyse scientific propositions, their high ability to critique, and their capacity to innovate, create, and generate new ideas—things the public expects from them, not merely reciting memorised information. The spread of computer culture, software, and the internet means that seminaries will not be able to compete in this regard. Seminaries must focus on training students to generate knowledge and innovate, and their examination systems must be based on this, rather than on the ability to memorise and retain information. This requires a teacher-centred system, where the teacher can identify a student’s ability to generate ideas and determine the appropriate environment for the development of ijtihad. Only then will students discover and nurture their intellectual and spiritual capacities, and they will remain motivated and dedicated to their learning.

The current memory-focused education system prevalent in seminaries, largely shaped by university models, results in a distance from true knowledge. It is through the ability to create and generate that a student can become an architect of human understanding, influence public opinion, and align themselves with society. Today, the knowledge of an engineer or a doctor is valued and purchased, while society does not buy mere memorised facts. This is because there is a significant difference between knowledge and information, and society knows that memorisation alone does not equate to true knowledge. Anyone can access the religious knowledge of experts directly, and eliminating intermediaries causes no harm, unless the intermediary is merely a teacher of a specific skill, which is, in fact, not very useful in the realm of religious science. For example, subjects such as jurisprudence, principles of law, or interpretative sciences, when taught as mere techniques, will not enhance any life. This issue is particularly evident in the seminaries for women, where the emphasis on memorisation over innovation hinders progress.

It is this power of critique, analysis, explanation, creation, and innovation that transforms human sciences and religious knowledge into real knowledge. Currently, the notion of selling knowledge is not relevant in seminaries, and such an idea has no place there. Seminaries can only reach this position when they foster the ability to generate religious knowledge within themselves.

The Fallacy of Treating Religious Technique as Religious Knowledge

We have previously mentioned that the clergy’s social influence and popularity are not due to their involvement in every issue pertaining to society or their advancement in social affairs. Their influence is not because they lead the charge in emotional development or growth (which could be the role of charity or social organisations). Nor is it because they engage in the abstract generation of knowledge, but rather, what gives the clergy their high social value is their ability to generate religious knowledge. Their public acceptance is religious, and the trust the public places in them is rooted in this. The clergy’s ability to generate religious knowledge depends on their expertise in ijtihad and their possession of the appropriate attributes of justice (divine traits).

Public acceptance of the clergy is based on two domains: one is intellectual acceptance, but not of abstract knowledge, rather because of their expertise in interpreting religion and serving as intermediaries for transmitting divine revelations from God and the infallible figures. The second domain is the acceptance based on their piety and trustworthiness, which has made them trustworthy in the eyes of the public. Of course, their trustworthiness and piety are on a lower level compared to the infallible figures, and that is why the concept of trustworthiness for the infallibles is associated with infallibility, while for religious scholars, it is tied to justice. There is a clear difference between the two, as the infallibles possess limitless and unqualified qualities, while for scholars, their qualities are grounded in ijtihad and justice, which are comparatively lesser.

These two types of social acceptance explain the clergy’s exalted position in society. Their social roles—such as public speaking, preaching, consulting, adjudicating, teaching, providing moral guidance, and invitations to social events—are all manifestations of these two forms of acceptance. The clergy’s social value is determined by their expertise in religious knowledge and their trustworthiness, and if one of these aspects falters, their social influence and popularity will diminish.

The clergy’s expertise, especially in an era when society’s knowledge has advanced, is crucial. If they cannot regain their pioneering role in the age of knowledge and technology, they will face popular alienation. The value of the clergy is measured by their ability to generate genuine religious knowledge, and if their ability to produce this knowledge declines, their credibility will inevitably erode. This is because, in a knowledge-based society, even trustworthiness is evaluated in a professional context; a society that values expertise will not trust a person who lacks sufficient knowledge. Trustworthiness among the clergy is rooted in the divine traits that they possess, and if they fail to offer genuine, sound, and divine-inspired knowledge, their actions will be called into question, and their trustworthiness will be undermined.

In the meantime, there are a few clerics who, by opposing the system, continue to exist, and whose interests are tied to this opposition. They seek to tarnish the image of the system in society and cause division, not by being aligned with foreign countries, but by offering seemingly scientific justifications and rationalizations for their stance.

There are also many scholars who neither align themselves with the system nor oppose it. They are engaged in impartial preaching and guidance, causing no harm to any group and remaining independent. Because they are trusted by the community and well-received by the people, they benefit from their support and have no need for assistance, nor do they rely on anyone.

The Need for Reform in Seminaries Based on the Reconstruction of Traditional Ijtihad

Those who show interest in the seminaries have pure and noble roots; none of them belong to the aristocracy but are from the noble and devout who have been nourished with lawful sustenance. However, these capable forces need to be re-educated and trained, and proper training requires changes in the educational and developmental system of the clergy, with a return to traditional ijtihad and the jurisprudence of the “Javahir” era, or even the jurisprudence of the early centuries of the Occultation. This is not only to teach the basic principles for ijtihad but also to provide the environment necessary for the granting of the sacred virtue or special grace from the Almighty.

The transformation of the seminaries requires cultural development and scholarly and then operational work, organised by a talented and accepted force that possesses true ijtihad and is under the special attention of the Almighty. This work is not carried out by inciting emotions, political inclinations, or popular approval; rather, it is undertaken by someone who can be considered a truly just mujtahid and who has cultivated the collective rationality to create a cultural and scholarly movement within the clergy, at least with a hundred effective scholarly forces. These forces should be devoted to the School of Shia and not swayed by materialistic desires. They should be united by the love for the guardianship of the Ahl al-Bayt, with no internal contradictions or emotional conflicts, allowing them to implement meaningful transformation and qualitative development within the clergy. These forces must exclusively serve the intellectual and moral core and be able to detach from all other services, focusing solely on creating a scholarly movement within the seminaries. They must avoid blending individualistic politics with religion and maintain a purity of intent, focusing only on scholarly work, keeping politics and power out of the academic domain. They must not become government agents or serve individual interests. This group must genuinely care for the school of Shia and the seminaries, sacrificing themselves for their cause. They should serve the religious government, not make religion serve a government. These two concepts should not be confused.

The Fallacy of Adopting a Political Religion Instead of Religious Governance

Another fallacy that may affect part of the clergy is the adoption of a political religion instead of religious governance. A political religion, despite holding power, lacks the capacity for development. Any force attracted to it, even at the level of religious authority, will experience stagnation and inertia, feeling no personal growth. Furthermore, due to the selfish interests of the forces within a political religion, its social acceptance is limited, and its losses outweigh its gains. Acceptance is also superficial, mainly involving physical bodies. The characteristic of religious governance is that it sustains and expands through expertise (true ijtihad), justice, and popular acceptance, ensuring its dominance over hearts.

Religious governance has a popular base, and its movement is gentle, soft, and silent. In contrast, a political religion is characterized by force and turmoil, which are inseparable from its nature. In the final days of the tyrannical regime, only a few hundred people were gathered in a square, treated with sandwiches and drinks to shout “Long live the king.” Despite being a small group, they used force, clubs, and weapons to eliminate any opposition. Yet, the Islamic Revolution, which had a popular base, turned into a wave that brought all the corrupt elements and the terrifying SAVAK regime to their demise.

To maintain its social position, the clergy should not turn its religious ideology into a political one; rather, it should defend the political religion and, instead of aligning with powers as a strategy, remain alongside the Shari’ah, bringing it to power through wisdom and scholarly production.

The clergy’s alignment with the state and the lack of practical objections does not imply a doctrinal commitment or heartfelt loyalty to those in power. Although in a religious system, such loyalty brings authority—not just practical obedience—without it, power becomes merely secular, devoid of sanctity. True power lies within, and it is this inner power that leads to social influence. In any case, power needs a popular base, and without it, it remains barren in a society like Iran, which is resistant to domination.

These flaws can only be rectified with an actively engineered system that is neither blind, dogmatic, rigid, dry, nor unscientific. Otherwise, just as the religious authorities and mujtahids once represented the voice of Islam, if the clergy loses its expertise, the voice of Islam will be heard from a clergy without Islam. That is, from clerics who neither know Islam nor practice it spiritually, nor possess the ability to analyze, critique, and generate thought to respond to inquiring scholars.

In the current era, with the Islamic system in power, the identity of the clergy is intertwined with the beloved country of Iran, the blood of martyrs, and the Shia school of thought. The clergy must maintain a compassionate and maternal relationship with the system, unlike the group that has adopted a hypocritical approach for personal gain by aligning with the system, securing a budget under the guise of institutions and centers, without contributing significantly to the Islamic system. This small group should be called clerics without Islam. Although they are absorbed by the system and are considered its expendable soldiers, their hypocritical approach means they contribute nothing but impose costs on the system.

Religion has many faces. The religious system is one aspect of it, and the religious community—one that the clergy must interact with and is people-oriented—is another face. The clergy must always maintain its independence by moving alongside the people and defending them, not becoming indebted to specific individuals or factions. Being “people-oriented” was the way of the prophets. However, being people-oriented does not mean engaging in conflict with the religious system; rather, the clergy’s interaction with the system must be based on their own expertise and ijtihad, benefiting both the Shia school of thought and the people’s interests, giving the system a religious face and protecting it from arbitrary or non-religious management.

Today, the Islamic system represents the Shia faith, governed by the religious views of Imam Khomeini, and other countries recognize Shia through this system. The hypocritical desire for such a system, as well as turning away from it in anger, both harm religion and the people. The Islamic system should be nurtured like a loving mother, through compassionate theorization and support.

The Islamic system should also allow the clergy to remain true to their role as protectors of the Shia school and maintain their scholarly face in all matters related to religion. They should be open to constructive criticism, welcoming voices that criticize and support the system with scholarly backing, and not attempt to silence them. Such critics, with their popular base, are genuinely concerned about religion, the people, and the system. The scholar is like the “fish,” and the people are like the “sea” for them, and they should be with the people, not tied to any political system. Being “people-oriented” does not necessarily mean engaging in conflict with the legitimate religious system, nor does it imply being dependent on governments. It is one of the fundamental principles for the clergy, a movement based on love and general guardianship, where the people consider the clergy as part of themselves, forming a deep emotional and spiritual bond with them.

The Fallacy of Adopting Executive Action Instead of Theorizing

The clergy needs to engage in scholarly theorization for the Islamic system. Theorizing for the Islamic system is not the same as becoming its executive force. The clergy’s focus on executive work is a harmful distraction that threatens the intellectual core of this community, stripping away creative thought. This function should be deliberately engineered based on a strategic plan. The clergy finds its active presence in society only through this intellectual function, and its role cannot be realized merely by infiltrating the state apparatus, as this would reduce them to a governmental or executive force. Instead, alongside the three branches of government, the clergy must serve as a critical intellectual force and think tank, enabling them to become ideologists, with all three branches recognizing their scientific authority and theoretical contributions, accepting their guidance as advisors and mentors, rather than focusing on executive roles and occupying key positions.

The clergy must be the theorists of the revolution, especially given that the Islamic Revolution began with emotional slogans and the people’s fervent support, rooted in traditional sentiment. Over time, however, emotional fervor fades, leaving only traditional consciousness. If this culture can renew itself and make its philosophy, jurisprudence, rights, and other foundational knowledge rationally grounded, it can re-establish this deeply rooted emotional consciousness among future generations, ensuring its lasting resilience. This resilience is supported by the religious, divine, Qur’anic, and guardianship-based foundation of its logical propositions. Otherwise, if it remains anchored only in emotional sentiment rooted in past traditions, it will lead to conflict and division. An emotion-based revolution devours its own children, as groups turn against each other, losing hope for progress and bringing despair and disconnection to the people.

The Islamic Revolution started with emotional shock and thus requires cultural reconstruction. The cultural structure, based on jurisprudence and spirituality rooted in rationality and collective expertise, must be built within the seminaries to ensure its integration into daily life. This requires independent scholars with genuine belief, specialized in Islamic law and philosophy, who can carefully theorise to develop a deep, practical, and lasting system for the nation and the Muslim people.

Until the Day of Resurrection, I shall bear it myself, and if I do not succeed, it is better to carry the burden of the sins and injustices that are inflicted upon the students and descendants in the current system of religious dues.

These permissions were originally intended to protect students by providing support from scholars, serving as a refuge against the injustices and anti-religious policies of the oppressive Pahlavi regime. However, these permissions led to detrimental consequences, resulting in individuals claiming authority without the necessary expertise, thus fostering ignorance and claims of legitimacy, especially when the element of justice is overlooked and ignorance becomes entangled with power, money, deceit, hypocrisy, and showmanship.

The primary role of seminaries should be the production of knowledge, particularly religious knowledge. However, their contribution to human sciences has drastically diminished since the emergence of universities and the Westernisation of human sciences. Scholars who once laid the foundations of various sciences now show little notable presence even in the fields that bear their names, with the religious sciences they provide having drifted into superficiality, turning from true religious science into a mere technique of religion. This superficiality, resulting from the dominance of theologians and conservative clerics, could eventually hinder their influence on the social foundations and transform the scholarly existence of this community into a mere accumulation of outdated and stereotypical information. As some have stated, the utility of this type of religious knowledge has not even reached the gates of Qom.

At present, the effectiveness of some clerics stems from their personal research and their broad, interdisciplinary approach to social issues and their expertise in certain human sciences. Thus, it is not accurate to consider them as general models for the entire clergy, as their approach varies. The clergy, as a collective, must improve their approach to society by producing contemporary religious knowledge, offering up-to-date beliefs, and applying jurisprudence according to the present-day society, using scientific reasoning accepted by the academic community and eliminating superfluous elements.

Many young clerics, whose reasoning has been shaped by individual academic work and who have embraced the production of religious techniques, have now broken through several global academic frontiers, making their influence outside of Qom more significant. International academic centres recognise clerics as a contributing institution to knowledge production, though they still fail to acknowledge the identity of religious science, mixing it with the technique of religion and overlooking the distinguished identity of religious jurisprudence.

Jurisprudence: A Cohesive Knowledge System

The most crucial area of expertise for a cleric is jurisprudence. However, it is not the jurisprudence as commonly understood today, which focuses merely on identifying rulings without considering their subjects and criteria. Instead, true jurisprudence involves understanding the subject and criteria before rendering a ruling. To comprehend a subject, intellectual sciences, as well as sociology and psychology, must be incorporated into the study of jurisprudence. Additionally, attention must be given to law as a progressive discipline in the modern era, as well as to the establishment of a legal system based on Shi’a beliefs. The Islamic government should be structured around a philosophy of social trust, rather than a disciplinary government.

Jurisprudence must emerge from its imposed marginalisation, which results from a rigid, conservative approach, and return to its original, free and dynamic foundation. Jurisprudence should encompass a comprehensive understanding of all religious teachings, offer balanced economic and ethical life guidance, and integrate scientific methods to keep pace with contemporary society.

Jurisprudence involves discerning the underlying purpose of the legislator’s statements. Therefore, it requires a thorough understanding of linguistics—specifically the language of jurisprudential propositions, and indeed the language of all religious propositions—to avoid falling into one-sided interpretations. Jurisprudence is filled with propositions that rely heavily on the implications, nuances, and indirect expressions rather than the literal meanings of words. The legislator often conceals the true objectives behind their statements, requiring careful interpretation. A focus solely on the literal meanings of words will prevent a jurist from grasping the intended purpose. The true jurist is the one who reaches the goals set by the legislator, which can only be achieved by understanding the subject, criteria, and overall knowledge framework of the legislator.

If a government is based on superficial jurisprudence, it leads to confusion and inefficacy of religious law. In contrast, jurisprudence, as the most important aspect of religion, underpins the rights of the people and outlines the structure of their lives. A superficial, formulaic application of jurisprudence, particularly when society is governed by its principles, can give rise to anti-jurisprudential social movements, as was seen with the Safavid dynasty, which ultimately led to its downfall due to its failure to maintain popular support. Today, such movements have either become foreign agents or shallow-minded individuals who embrace a surface-level form of spirituality without depth.

A jurisprudence grounded in a careful understanding of the subject and criteria will replace unfounded imitation—often aligned with complacency and indifference—with a research-based, effort-oriented approach that can justify many religious propositions, or at least explain their underlying wisdom. A legal system built on such jurisprudence can engage in debate with liberal democratic legal systems and secular philosophies, as seen with international bodies like the United Nations, which govern with jurisprudence and law, rather than philosophy or mysticism. This highlights the importance of jurisprudence in human life. An attack on jurisprudence is, therefore, an attack on how jurists engage with religious propositions, often disguised as a criticism of the science itself, even though the world has no issue with science in general—especially with Shi’a jurisprudence, which claims to ensure both worldly wellbeing and eternal salvation.

Today’s global academic world welcomes any discipline that can clearly define its scientific standing and engage in dialogue using contemporary scientific language. The world does not dismiss science, but science must be articulated through established methodologies for it to be accepted. Whenever a discipline is under attack, it is the methods of inquiry and presentation that are targeted, not the discipline itself—provided that the discipline has genuine academic substance.

Sociology and psychology are two sciences that serve jurisprudence. Sociology plays a significant role in the process of deriving legal rulings, as the understanding of jurisprudence requires knowledge of the subject matter. Without this understanding, a jurist might mistakenly apply rulings to inappropriate subjects. The actions of individuals cannot be fully understood without a complete understanding of the subject matter, and without proper criteria, a ruling will not be accurately applied to the situation at hand. Since many jurists have adopted a purely devotional approach to rulings, they have neglected the need to understand the subjects involved, resulting in a narrowing of their scholarly approach, which overlooks essential disciplines such as sociology and psychology.

The Role of Psychology in Jurisprudence

As we mentioned earlier, human beings can be categorised into three broad groups: the fully realised and virtuous, the moderately faithful, and the ordinary people. Their actions, too, are in accordance with their respective categories. A jurist, in issuing a legal ruling, must consider the subject at hand. For example, while it may be discouraged for an ordinary person to sleep alone at home, this ruling does not apply to the fully realised individuals or saints, for whom solitude strengthens their mental and spiritual capacities. Such individuals benefit from seclusion, as it invites divine grace and the presence of angels, which would be hindered by the presence of distractions or strangers.

A jurist must thus have a sound knowledge of human psychology in order to properly apply legal rulings. Only by understanding the psychological state and needs of the individuals involved can a jurist issue an appropriate ruling. This psychological awareness allows the jurist to avoid superficial interpretations and ensure that the rulings align with the actual circumstances of each person, thus preventing one-size-fits-all judgments.

The jurisprudence currently available to scholars is still in its infancy and has not yet been developed to the point where it can clearly distinguish between the different capacities of individuals in accordance with the Qur’anic verse: “God does not burden a soul beyond its capacity” [Quran 2:286]. This is especially important when considering the unique capacities of each individual within the context of Islamic law.

The Two Faces of Islam

Islam has two faces: one is the general face, accessible and understandable for all individuals, which ensures the protection of blood, property, and honour. The other face is the more specific, esoteric dimension of Islam, which is only accessible to those striving for spiritual perfection. This second face of Islam provides deeper benefits and guidance for those whose hearts are purified and who seek closeness to the divine. It is not intended for the general populace, who are not in a position to fully benefit from its teachings.

Most people treat religion as a decorative ornament, using it for outward show rather than for its deeper spiritual or moral value. In such a society, the teachings of Islam cannot be fully realised or applied, and the benefits of religion remain superficial—expressed only through cries, tears, and lamentations.

Conclusion

Religion, with its comprehensive body of knowledge, is a cohesive and interconnected system. Its scientific domains are not fragmented or disconnected. Rather, they form a unified epistemological system that a jurist must understand in order to accurately interpret and apply its teachings. A jurist must have a thorough grasp of all aspects of divine revelation, both general and specialized, and must derive specific rulings from this broad and cohesive knowledge base.

Knowledge production in religious sciences should not be superficial. To effectively apply Islamic teachings, a jurist must be well-versed in all relevant fields of knowledge, and the system of religious education must be grounded in an “instructor-centered” model. This would guarantee the holistic development of scholars and the continuation of genuine scholarly engagement with the problems of society.

The “instructor-centered” approach, where the teacher plays a pivotal role in guiding students both intellectually and morally, is crucial for training effective scholars. This system would prevent the fragmentation of religious knowledge, and would guide students toward an understanding of the underlying principles of Islamic law and ethics.

The Role of Devotion in Acquiring Knowledge

Knowledge takes root in a person when, first and foremost, they possess devotion and affection towards their teacher. The more the student is attached to their teacher, the quicker and more effectively knowledge is ingrained, and it remains firmly established. A student, through their devotion and love for the teacher, gains the willpower necessary for their studies. Through this affection, the student enters into the service of the teacher, who is capable of guiding them towards the acquisition of the virtuous qualities essential for independent reasoning and the production of knowledge.

Unfortunately, in contemporary times, the respect for teachers has faded to such an extent that serving them is now seen as a disgrace. However, in the past, students and scholars sought the opportunity to serve their teachers and regarded doing so as an honour. A teacher may reprimand a student, but the student should still thank the teacher, and their affection for the teacher should not wane. A student, who is in the presence of a spiritual and scholarly teacher, must seek to serve and be devoted, rather than to protect their own status. One who sees themselves as a master cannot serve anyone; rather, they seek out servants. Serving a teacher is not for the benefit of the teacher; rather, the student gains from it, and indeed, through service, the student purges their ego and prepares their inner self to receive the divine qualities that the teacher imparts.

Many of the moral issues a student faces, such as arrogance and pride, dissipate through service to the teacher. Naturally, service cannot be performed by someone who is arrogant. The clerical attire is one of humility. One who is unwilling to humble themselves even slightly does not have the capacity to receive the divine light of knowledge or the necessary qualities for pursuing spiritual or intellectual matters.

Among the barriers to devotion and service are doubts about the teacher, focusing solely on theoretical knowledge, and an unwillingness to engage in practical service, which can lead to a sense of superiority. Such pride causes dryness of spirit and is at odds with the openness and generosity that are essential for receiving both intellectual and spiritual truths. A teacher-oriented approach, however, allows the student to pursue knowledge in a manner that makes it a source of light rather than darkness.

Devotion is as essential for knowledge as the role of parents in a child’s upbringing. A student cannot attain the internal wisdom and divine qualities that come with knowledge unless they have a proper foundation. Knowledge acquisition should be teacher-oriented, as is the case in all disciplines. Educational systems that focus solely on textbooks and grades do not nurture the student in a way that prepares them for intellectual, spiritual, and moral growth. Such systems lead students to be like orphans in a shelter who do not know their parents and are not grounded in their knowledge, leaving them with feelings of insecurity and confusion.

Teacher-centred educational systems foster real relationships between teacher and student, unlike book-oriented systems where devotion does not emerge. Even after years of study together under the guidance of a single teacher, two students might end up in conflict later in life, starting separate paths in search of their own success. This issue arises from a lack of receptivity to proper guidance.

This phenomenon today has led to the dominance of book-centred approaches over teacher-centred ones. In contemporary times, books enjoy more popularity than ever before. However, true teachers have become rare, and their presence is much more valued.

Reading books on grammar, jurisprudence, logic, or spiritual texts such as Misbah al-Ins or Fusus al-Hikam is mere literacy. It is through the practical exercises, under the guidance of a skilled teacher, that this literacy transforms into insight and action, keeping students from falling into mere intellectual vanity. In the past, students even sought a teacher to perfect the recitation of their prayers, doubting their own learning. One of the common questions asked by teachers fifty years ago was, “Who did you learn to recite your prayers from?” Yet today, fewer people consider themselves free from error.

In the past, students sought the wisdom of their teachers and learned the nuances of knowledge, which were as intricate as the twists of hair. When a student became attached to a teacher, their bond was steadfast, enduring until either their death or the teacher’s. Such loyalty was constant, and they did not waver in their pursuit of knowledge.

Of course, one should not trust anyone too quickly; however, once a student finds a teacher they trust, they should not doubt them and should remain with them at all times.

Without a teacher and without devotion, knowledge becomes distant, and it will only lead to inner turmoil. One scholar, who had a dispute with a prominent scholar, could not deny his scholarly abilities (for he had written hundreds of books and had thousands of students). Instead, he spread the rumour that the scholar was not truly a descendent of the Prophet, as lineage could not be easily proven. Such behaviour stems from a lack of respect and devotion. Many matters are not addressed in books because they may be misused by the unworthy, or because they are not granted permission for publication. It is teachers who carry the knowledge passed down through generations. For this reason, when assessing a student’s level of knowledge, one must first ask, “Who did they study under?”

A true scholar must be rooted in this principle and have a lineage of learning. A student should never boast about having read hundreds of books or written dozens of papers, nor should they boast about studying under many teachers. A person who only reads books and does not develop attachment to a teacher, nor feels the warmth of devotion, will never truly reach the knowledge required for spiritual depth or independent reasoning.

In the past, religious seminaries were centres of devotion. When Ayatollah Haeri arrived in Qom, he sought out Sayyid Ahmad Khonsari. He was told that Khonsari had stayed in Arak, as the people of Arak wanted to keep him for themselves. Ayatollah Haeri remarked, “How strange! I wanted him to become a Shi’ite scholar, but he has become a scholar of Arak!” He said no more than this. When Khonsari heard this, he did not return home but immediately set off for Qom, saying, “My staying here is forbidden.” His family and possessions were soon sent to him in Qom. Later, he became a leading figure of the Shi’ite community and played a significant role in supporting the revolutionary movement led by Imam Khomeini.

In contemporary times, the task of identifying true intellectuals and guiding them toward knowledge is more important than ever. Rather than simply increasing the number of students, religious seminaries must focus on identifying exceptional individuals with natural talent, offering them proper financial and spiritual support, and guiding them under the mentorship of qualified teachers. This approach would ensure that only the most capable individuals are cultivated into true scholars.

The seminaries hold the best resources for generating knowledge. Both in the Holy Qur’an and in the Hadith, there are significant scientific projects that the seminaries make no use of and have only become passive consumers of. These centers should not expend the property belonging to the Imam of the Time (may Allah hasten his reappearance), which is the property of orphans. Rather, they should cover their expenses through the production and sale of knowledge. This approach would enable scientific centers not only to be self-sustaining, but to transition from being consumers to producers. The seminary should extract various psychological, mystical, philosophical, empirical, artistic, and many other plans from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, refine, process, and polish them, and create a market to sell them. This is how they can eliminate the burden of loan repayments and goods, relieving students from the need to seek small amounts of money by engaging in menial tasks, which may cause them to lose their dignity. A child who witnesses his father struggling to obtain even a small amount of money and endures humiliation cannot develop an affinity for the seminaries. Even if the father becomes a scholar, this will not be enough to secure the future of his descendants.

It is worth mentioning that some mistakenly believe that the sustenance of seminarians through Khums is justified because of poverty, and that Khums is given to students simply due to their needs. However, we have explained in advanced jurisprudence lectures that a scholar is not a beggar, and the portion of Khums allocated to seminarians is not charity, but rather a distribution in the way of Allah. The purity and love inherent in the life of a student stems from this very concept of being in the service of Allah. The student is for the sake of God and associated with Him, a God who gives nothing but love and purity, and it is not possible to separate the life of a student from these qualities.

The seminary should be like the scholars of the past, capable of invention and discovery, and through the production of knowledge, remain dynamic, progressive, and dignified, so that it will not be forced to seek its livelihood through degrading means. It should not have to endure humiliating tasks to secure basic sustenance. Giving a meager stipend to seminarians, aside from the inherent flaws in such a payment method, renders it unworthy and does not make it pure or blessed simply because it is attributed to the Imam of the Time (may Allah hasten his reappearance). The Imam, who is a noble and generous figure, would never consent to such small and degrading payments being given to anyone.

While Khums and the portion for the Imam are attributed to the Imam of the Time, this attribution alone does not purify the money. The Shi’a people must be educated to ensure that the Khums they give to scholars comes from lawful and pure sources. They should not designate doubtful or questionable money, nor should they assign money that is uncertain in origin or potentially unlawful as Khums. Furthermore, money mixed with unlawful sources, under certain conditions, can be subject to Khums; however, the Khums obtained from such money should never enter the life of a scholar. Neglecting this matter leads to spiritual impurity for the recipient, and it is not enough for the Khums to merely be attributed to the Imam of the Time (may Allah hasten his reappearance) to negate the harmful consequences of using such money.

These content-related issues surrounding the payment of stipends and the use of funds are secondary problems that, under the shadow of the more significant issue of the lack of a system for properly directing the distribution of funds, become less noticeable. Scholars must ensure that their livelihoods are derived from the purest possible income, and they should be mindful of the purity of that income. It is the jurist who can articulate the rulings on these matters within the framework of their jurisprudential reflections, guiding the people and quarantining the funds intended for scholars, thereby preparing them spiritually and intellectually to flourish. As they develop, they will elevate the level of spirituality in society and bring greater blessings to the people.

The above vision must be at the forefront of those responsible for managing the seminaries’ funds. However, this vision stands in stark contrast to the reality where a seminarian, burdened by the weight of life’s struggles, is often forced to abandon his studies and turn to laborious or industrial work for survival. How can a student who is living in such conditions fulfill his duties properly? Are the people familiar with the problems faced by seminarians so that their expectations of them align with the difficulties they face in daily life? Should not a seminarian, struggling with countless challenges, be exempt from the expectation of achieving such high levels of knowledge? How can a student in such a situation focus on his primary responsibility, which is learning, in order to engage in scholarly, non-populist preaching, instead of wasting time repeating familiar issues that have long since become redundant?

The Protection of Religion from Superstitions:

The role of the seminaries is to always protect Shi’a culture and Islam from the danger of superstitions and misconceptions, presenting it in a scientific and up-to-date manner. Understanding the divine religion requires the ability to distinguish between genuine religious propositions and those that are not religious but have historically been attributed to religion. We call these non-religious propositions, presented in the name of religion, “superstitions.” A scholar who lacks the capacity to identify these superstitions loses the authority to interpret the religion, and a Shi’a scholar cannot accurately convey the pure opinions of religion, both in terms of legal rulings and theological matters.

It is necessary to document all religious propositions so that superstitions, which have been institutionalized in the name of religion, can be identified and eradicated. No religious ruling or proposition should be accepted without solid evidence. Research into all religious propositions ensures that superstitions are recognized and removed, while valid, well-supported propositions are firmly established. After these two stages, many religious propositions in the sacred texts that have been neglected or abandoned will regain their rightful position in the religious framework.

“Superstition removal” is only possible through the establishment of a comprehensive university within the domain of religious sciences, designed for this purpose. Graduates of this institution, upon reaching the level of ijtihad, will be able to free the religious culture from the many superstitions that have been included in rulings and teachings. The personnel of this university will be trained over a period of four years in both scientific and religious contexts, aiming to strengthen their ability to remove superstitions. They must be able to defend the religion and its legitimate practices, identify and correct non-religious aspects of both legal rulings and teachings, and ensure the survival of an authentic and vibrant religion.

This institution should primarily accept students who have advanced to the level of “outside study” (Kharej) or those with at least a doctoral degree. Over four years, they will attain a level of religious knowledge that equips them to discern superstitions, requiring them to have the ability to engage in independent legal reasoning and extraction of religious rulings from the foundational texts.

In addition, the clergy is subject to practical judgment. Nowadays, what clergy say is no longer the main criterion for evaluation in many fields; rather, the continuous practices they engage in have become the standard by which their credibility is assessed. This is because the government has created opportunities for the clergy to actively engage in society through various institutions and organizations, and people now evaluate the truthfulness and credibility of their claims through observable actions in the real world. We have often emphasized that only knowledge and honesty elevate the voice of the clergy above others and shift the current imbalance in their favor. This imbalance leads to a restriction of freedoms, and the space for free theorizing is constrained, resulting in a situation that cannot be improved without a serious overhaul, requiring surgical intervention to prevent worsening.

It is important to note that the victory of the Islamic Revolution was an unexpected event for the clergy who supported it. The clergy who participated in the revolution stirred the people’s emotions, rallying them to their cause.

The Islamic Revolution was a monumental event with vast dimensions, yet its roots lay in emotional impulses. It is necessary to connect this deeply rooted and fruitful movement to culture, reason, jurisprudence, justice, spirituality, sincerity, clarity, faith, and purity to ensure its strong foundation and to protect it from the tempests of events.

The clergy must consider all people as brothers, regardless of their orientations or tastes. Just as heritage belongs to all, they should not create any distinctions between the people of Iran. Instead, they should extend the mantle of love and kindness to all members of the Iranian community.

The clergy must be placed in a specialized educational cycle to develop open-mindedness and tolerance. Their religious knowledge should exceed that of the general public or even postgraduate university students. If they are trained by divine mentors, they will acquire a sacred attribute that will empower them to produce new knowledge and present innovative ideas. They should also possess a sanctity that aligns their behavior with Islamic principles, not in a naïve, infallible manner, but in a manner that reflects both faith and justice.

Attention to these two points is crucial in improving the society’s perception of the clergy.

Preserving a Healthy Environment for Free Thinking

The management of seminaries must protect the space for free thinking and well-supported theoretical discussion, ensuring that theorists are not met with violence or extremism. They must safeguard the space for constructive criticism on all issues, be capable of hearing any negations or affirmations from critics and theorists, and protect them from overpowering authorities or opportunistic wave-riders as the academic and spiritual children of the seminary.

All seminarians and scholars must be free to theorize without fear of retribution. At the same time, they should be open to criticism and should not stubbornly insist on theories that have been scientifically challenged and lack evidence. In this regard, an elected scientific committee could serve as an arbitrator between theorists and critics, with the decision of the arbitrator being respected unless a reasoned rebuttal is provided, in which case the final decision should rest with the arbiters.

To preserve the culture of Shia Islam, the clergy must value the younger generation and provide them with opportunities for research and free, yet substantiated, dialogue so they can address the challenges and issues facing this great culture through scientific jihad and cultural revolution. This scientific jihad requires the design of powerful databases and software systems that document the history and progression of every issue and identify problems and criticisms, thus enabling the search for “truth” in an environment free from unsupported propaganda, opportunism, or coercive power.

This database must operate in such a way that it encompasses all companies and institutions producing software related to religious issues and be recognized as a global authority in understanding topics and historical developments. It should be so reliable and up-to-date that its data defines the policies in this field.

Truthfulness and the Battle Against Imperialism and Hypocrisy

Every society, including the clergy, has an external truth. This singular truth has both a soul and an environment. For sociological understanding of a society’s psyche, one must not only consider sociology but also psychology. The distinction between sociology and psychology is akin to the difference between understanding a continent and understanding a country. For example, the Iranian society is not limited to its geographical boundaries but extends far beyond. In this era, many people have distanced themselves from their ancestral roots and the society they once belonged to. This society has an innate nature, and its soul is divinely inspired, but imperialist monarchs and superstitions have been injected into both Iranian society and the clergy that resides within it, to align the religious institutions with their interests and lead people to forget the true realities of their divine nature. This forgetfulness, along with imperialism, has led to the spread of two characteristics within the Iranian society — characteristics that have been deliberately planted by centers of power.

A society infected with imperialism suffers from self-centeredness and hypocrisy. Such a society overestimates its abilities and aligns itself with the closest centers of power. Forgetfulness and imperialism, along with their consequences — such as hypocrisy, pretension, and deceit — are foreign to the pure essence of Iranians and are a result of a long-term process that can be cured with proper policy and planning. The theorists of this long-term cure can only be found within religious seminaries. The imperialism in question has corrupted individuals to the extent that even the purest people, who are humbly prostrating in prayer, when placed in positions of power, begin to exhibit the signs of imperialism — harsh behavior, unkind speech, and discord with subordinates — acting in ways that resemble the behavior of tyrannical monarchs toward their weak subjects.

Imperialism and hypocrisy are an infectious disease passed down from monarchs to the Iranian people, and like cancer, it requires surgery, treatment, and healing. Once imperialism is eradicated, hypocrisy, pretension, and deceit will also vanish, and Iranian kindness, goodness, and compassion will flourish so much that anyone who sees another will be willing to sacrifice everything they have for them. However, the current imperialism prevents such love because people fear appearing insignificant. This imperialism corrupts everything it touches and removes purity from it. This disease cannot be healed through law or force; rather, it requires the skilled treatment of a healer, removing despotism and superstitions from the psyche of the people.

A society free from imperialism reaches a level of purity where they can establish a virtuous government — a government where citizens live in complete freedom, and all talents are nurtured. Each individual becomes their true self, not playing the roles of others or wearing masks. The virtuous state acts like a blacksmith’s forge, where every material is melted, and impurities are cast aside, leaving only the purest form. This is the stage where every individual becomes their true self, and it is in this state of truth that salvation is achieved. Truth means being oneself, accepting one’s nature, and never pretending to be something one is not. Hypocrisy, deceit, and pretense lead to moral decay.

A truly religious society is one where everyone is free to be themselves without infringing upon others’ rights, avoiding oppression, and rejecting pretense and deceit. Such a society does not fall into the traps of arrogance, inferiority, or despair. It is free from oppression and suffocation, with hearts that are free from resentment, grudges, or regret. Religion seeks for each person to be true to themselves, rejecting both despotism and disorder, while embracing freedom.

Establishing a Theory Database

The seminary should also create a theory database where all scholars in the humanities can register their innovative ideas and provide their reasoning. These theories should be accessible to all seminary members, allowing them to offer critiques. Both the submission of ideas and their critiques should be properly documented.

Creating an Information Database

An information database for religious propositions and all seminary data must be established, providing easy access for all seminarians. This database should store all major classes and lectures and highlight new, influential opinions. This will encourage group research, rather than isolated inquiry. At the end of the year, all critiques related to specific issues should be collected and made available to all students, at least in electronic form.

Establishing a Shared Financial System for Religious Funds

Understanding religious rulings and the reasons behind them is different from knowing how to manage the financial resources, like religious taxes (Khums and Zakat). A scholar may be fully competent in issuing religious rulings but may lack the knowledge or authority to manage these funds effectively. Therefore, in addition to religious knowledge, scholars must have competence in managing religious funds. If a scholar is not capable of proper management, they should not handle religious taxes.

It is essential to create a shared financial institution that can manage these funds and ensure they are spent according to religious principles. Such an institution would be accountable, with a transparent system that allows public oversight. Scholars must be accountable for the funds they manage, ensuring they are distributed justly, in line with Islamic teachings, and with full transparency.

Divine Assistance to the Clergy

Indeed, in this book, we have presented some critiques of the clergy; however, this does not imply that this community will eventually vanish.

Currently, the clergy — particularly the knowledgeable and specialized clerics who have something to offer — command the highest respect and reverence among the people compared to other social groups. We can say with absolute certainty that whether the Islamic system remains stable or not, the clergy will endure forever. This is because they are rooted in the religion and the beliefs of the people, and the people have an inherent acceptance of this group, a connection that will never wane. Especially as the clergy are deeply concerned with religion, and the committed scholars, with their tireless and self-sacrificial efforts, work to modernize and present the faith in forms that resonate with the people.

The clergy have consistently demonstrated the shrewdness and wisdom to safeguard the Shia school of thought through turbulent events, preserving it throughout the trials of history. Furthermore, this group is supported by the divine confirmations and aids of the Awaited Savior (may God hasten his reappearance). Although this does not contradict their possible decline at certain moments in time, such a decline — stemming from the mismanagement of certain scholars — will never signify their total collapse or degradation. The clergy remain the most enduring community among the people, even though they may, at times, either hold direct political power or lack direct involvement in governance. However, any ruler needs their support, and without it, their legitimacy will be severely limited.

At the time of Ayatollah Borujerdi, the clergy held unified authority. After his passing, the leadership of the clergy was taken up by Ayatollah Khomeini, expanding beyond borders and becoming international. Despite some claiming the end of their authority after Ayatollah Borujerdi’s death, due to the propaganda of the oppressive regime, the clerical leadership has continued to thrive.

The clergy’s utilization of divine, supernatural systems, enacted by pious and spiritual scholars, is a key characteristic of their community. This spiritual system guides them covertly, with some clerics unaware of it, as they publicly defend the faith or promote their teachings. This hidden, ultra-secret system operates smoothly without drawing attention. The actions of these scholars — whose inner state is not visible — are part of an unspoken mystery, which we believe can be understood within the framework of spiritual men and figures of inner essence. This system is invulnerable and impenetrable to outsiders, guaranteeing the survival of the clergy, with the issues we mentioned earlier not affecting this inner, purified layer, but only the superficial aspects of the community. The true foundation of the clergy lies in this inner, hidden layer, and the external, educational, and academic efforts, which are changeable, are less significant compared to this foundational base. It is this core, hidden aspect that will ultimately enable the clergy to maintain cultural superiority over secular and laic societies.

The clergy have deep roots among the religious people of Iran, and no one can uproot this ancient foundation, which is firmly connected to the divine truth. This is not the case with kingdoms or ruling systems that can be overthrown through a coup.

Today’s revolution requires a cultural jihad for the engineering of faith and spirituality — a greater and more significant jihad than any previous ones. The current societal thirst for spirituality and metaphysical pursuits, driven not by mere devotion, but by a deep search for peace and knowledge, is evident. The people are in search of a fulfilling path that will bring inner tranquility and offer insights into the reality of existence.

The clergy today, more than ever, need to struggle to produce religious knowledge and ijtihad (jurisprudence) that is free from political affiliations and dependency on religious governance. They must also avoid stagnation while preserving the rationality and spirituality inherent in religion.

Anthropology of the Clergy

An essential strategy for the clergy’s engagement with society is understanding the people. With comprehensive knowledge of the psychology of all Iranian ethnicities and people from different regions of the world, the clergy can identify areas of love and affection for the people, thereby maximizing the reception of religious teachings. When people find a dedicated and knowledgeable cleric, they form a deep spiritual connection and respect him more than any other profession.

The clergy must remain rooted among the people and sustain their relevance. To do so, they must understand the people who love religious figures. Iran’s sociological structure, based on ethnicity, religion, and social classes, can be analyzed through the lens of occupational status.

Across Iran, there are nearly twenty languages and one hundred and ten dialects. Effective communication strategies for each region must be tailored accordingly, taking into account various factors such as temperament, intellectual capacities, effort levels, physical appearance, bravery, and education.

The clergy must understand how different ethnic groups interact with governance, their history, and particularly their role during the imposed war. Understanding these nuances can help in shaping the clergy’s interactions with people and increase their outreach.

Separatism: Disconnection from the Homeland

Separatism is one of the plots historically pursued by imperialist countries against Iranian ethnic groups. This threat does not stem from neighboring countries, as Iranian ethnic groups, despite their geographical proximity to Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Iraq, view Iran as their only homeland. These groups hold deep-rooted attachment to Iran and will never seek independence from it, even if it meant forming their own independent states.

Among Iranian ethnic groups, while there have been certain conflicts among Kurds during the imposed war, these should be attributed to specific groups, not the entire Kurdish ethnicity. Kurds and Baluchs originated from Iran, and before identifying as Kurds or Baluchs, they see themselves as Iranians and are strongly patriotic.

After the Persian ethnic group, the Turks — particularly the Azeris — have the largest population and most significant position in the country. The Azeri people’s civilization leads them to be more conservative and to avoid conflicts with the government, as their wealth and resources offer stability. If the Iranian government provides policies for the economic development of peripheral regions, these ethnic groups would naturally align with the government because they identify as Iranian.

Interaction of Religions with the Clergy

It is essential to research the attitudes and interactions of other religions, both within Iran and abroad, toward the clergy. The relationship between the people and the clergy — shaped by ethnicity and religious beliefs — is influenced by their respective cultures and civilizations. For example, Christians tend to have a fondness for pious clerics, while Zoroastrians also respect Shia clerics. Some non-Shia groups are even more inclined toward the clergy than some Shia individuals.

The clergy must understand the global perception of their community, using accurate research to guide their policies. The interaction of the clergy with the world, especially with those inclined toward academic and spiritual discussions, is crucial.

Shia Islam, though recognized as a distinct sect, is often misunderstood by the wider world. Since the revolution, many countries have scrutinized the governance of the Islamic Republic. Shia Muslims, especially in countries like Africa and India, face unique challenges that must be understood in the context of global religious dynamics.

Interaction Based on Age and Education

When engaging with the clergy, factors such as age, education level, and political inclinations tend to have more influence than ethnicity or religion. Young people’s level of religious belief and respect for the clergy also plays a critical role in determining the clergy’s social standing.

At higher educational levels, the importance of the clergy’s ijtihad (jurisprudence) and justice becomes more evident. If these two principles are ignored, then regardless of the level of education attained, the credibility of religious practices may weaken.

Conclusion

If the clergy do not work tirelessly to meet the needs of the people and organize themselves effectively, Iranian society may face an onslaught of secularism and laicism, leading to a decline in faith and relegating religion to a purely traditional and obsolete practice. The clergy must recognize the challenges of our time and assume their profound responsibility toward the faith. This responsibility requires self-sacrifice, daily efforts in religious scholarship, and producing fresh, meaningful contributions for the people.

History, as known to us from its beginnings, demonstrates that individual or collective power, in whatever form it has evolved, has always been accompanied by the authority of rulers and the weakness of the people. This dynamic of strength and weakness has led rulers to see themselves as absolute owners, while the people regarded themselves as subjects. There was never a time when the people recognised their own empowerment, nor was there a period when both the rulers and the people represented forces of power. The people’s weakness was such that they accepted their subordinate position to the ruling class, aristocrats, and landlords. To be a subject meant to be a follower, a dependent, without the right to vote or make choices. Such systems were either imposed by monarchs and despots in autocratic governments or, in democratic regimes, the people, by their own will, entrusted governance to an individual for a limited time, effectively binding themselves to this individual’s authority. Rulers also promoted this culture to their advantage, not wanting any changes in this view.

In the past, some landlords regarded all the people of their villages, even their daughters, as their own subjects, and marriages and divorces were not allowed without the consent of the landlords. They took the best daughters for themselves and their families, denying them the freedom to marry as they wished. Some were even sacrificed with ease, and the belief of the people in their subjugation justified these actions as the rightful claim of the landlords.

Although religion fundamentally opposes all forms of injustice, due to its lack of a strong social and economic base, it had to sanction certain traditions, such as slavery, which were highly influential in the economy of the time, accepting slaves as subjects of their masters. It also established the concept of sovereignty and rulership, designating God as the absolute owner and ruler of all phenomena. While this is true, the endorsement of some laws was due to the lack of a strong social foundation to immediately abolish them, aiming to eliminate them gradually through deterrent policies, as seen in the case of slavery. Islam, likewise, views the holders of authority as caretakers of wealth, regarding their ownership of people’s property as ceremonial. In reality, all land and sky are entrusted to humanity as a form of stewardship; true ownership only applies where consumption is possible, and no ruler can consume all earthly and heavenly phenomena.

The Fallacy of Absolute Rule Instead of Legitimate Authority

As mentioned earlier, authoritarian governance and absolute sovereignty are historically rooted in the power of rulers, and the clergy should not confuse this historical form with the doctrinal elements of their own continuation. They should not position themselves as rulers and masters of the people, as monarchs and despots did, nor should they regard themselves as powerful figures, expecting only submission and obedience from the people. The clergy, in their interaction with the people, should not adopt the stance of kings and tyrants, nor behave like elected heads of state who, though chosen by the people, reduce them to mere subjects under the law. Even in a system like the Islamic Republic, where officials are elected either directly or indirectly, the electoral process embodies the spirit of the ‘Republic,’ which inherently carries emotional and spiritual significance.

A republic is a system of popular governance, in which the people, through their representatives, govern themselves. In the case of the Islamic Republic, people trust religious scholars and turn to them for guidance and protection. The “public” refers to ordinary people, who, prior to making decisions based on wisdom and reason, are often led by emotion. This is especially true in Iran, where the people are very emotional, and their decisions are driven more by feelings than rational analysis. The “public” and emotion are intertwined, and when people express an emotion towards someone, it should be understood as temporary. This allows them to always make free choices in the future, including regarding their view of governance and the Islamic Republic. This means that when the people, through their emotional expressions, give allegiance to Islam, they are affirming their own choice, and any objections outside of this framework can be seen as a breach of the contract, leading to the right of the authorities to act.

Every popular choice that brings the public into the political arena should be seen as temporary. If our ancestors accepted the oppressive regime of the Shah, it does not mean we are bound to do the same. Just as our ancestors cannot decide our fate, we also cannot dictate the fate of future generations. Periodic elections reinforce the right to self-determination for all people at all times, and no law should permanently strip people of their freedom and right to decide their future. A law that has been approved by the people should not bind them indefinitely, but must always remain in line with the will of the people, otherwise, it becomes a mere instrument of power, rather than a reflection of popular sovereignty.

The Law’s Protection of Human Dignity

The law must exist within a framework that is returned to the people. Furthermore, the law’s legitimacy is grounded in its public acceptance, and people cannot fully understand its consequences or embrace it unless they feel its operational impact. At times, they may be misled by oversimplifications and superficial thinking, but the temporary nature of laws ensures that the people always retain the right to accept or reject laws in future elections. Without this, people would revert to being subjects, their dignity ignored. If the dignity of a society is disregarded and their spirit is wounded, it will result in a rebellious response, as witnessed in various movements such as secularism, liberalism, feminism, and radicalism. These movements were often born out of the suffering, exploitation, and disenfranchisement of the people, seeking to overthrow the tyrannies of their time. The people, wounded in spirit, sought liberation, but in their anger, they often sought radical solutions, even to the extent of turning against divine or moral authority. The example of Western society, which turned against religious and political oppressors, is a clear illustration of this cycle.

The Similarity Between Traditional and Modern Thought

In traditional thought, people saw themselves as subjects to rulers who often adopted religious justifications for their dominance, considering their subjects as property to be exploited at will. After the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the content remained similar, though the form became more systematic and modern. Today, people have become subjects of the systems designed and controlled by those in power. Western man, wounded by the tyranny of religious rulers, sought refuge in human rights, discarding the concept of being a subject and claiming the status of a citizen, securing equality under the law. However, this shift in form did not change the fundamental nature of governance, and people still find themselves under the authority of the system, just as they were once under the authority of monarchs and religious figures.

Modern man, despite advancements in literacy and ethics, is still under the control of systems of oppression, though these are now masked in democratic and seemingly respectful forms. Just as people of the past were enslaved by monarchs and priests, the modern citizen is still subjugated to the powers that govern them, even if in a more concealed manner.

The progress of human history has led to a more critical and aware society. Today, people are less likely to accept dogmas and illusions, rejecting the false deifications of power that once exploited them. Though modernity has provided new frameworks of governance, it has often been at the expense of the very freedoms and autonomy it promised to restore.

The unjust Caliphs, through coups and the ousting of the infallible figures from power, subjected the Islamic society to disastrous calamities. The consequences of the removal of the “owner of Soloni” have led to a situation where no Islamic country today enjoys peace or is safe from the exploitation of imperialism and the systemic corruption they have planned. There is not a day that, for example, in Iraq or Afghanistan, a Muslim is not killed or their dignity is violated. The smoke from the fire of Saqifah that now harms the Muslims’ eyes is the result of the injustices inflicted upon the rightful owner of truth and guardianship, and throughout history, Muslims have paid the price for this injustice, a cost that will continue until the time of the awaited appearance. The unjust caliphs of the Umayyads and Abbasids were only concerned with their own leadership and monarchy, and had no intention to understand religion as it was revealed. In matters of religious knowledge, they were both ignorant and adopted anti-religious policies, let alone the fact that they did not create any space for the infallible figures to spread knowledge or propagate religion. Thus, the content of the religion was distorted.

Had the religious values and content been disseminated by the infallible leaders, the design and structuring of the religious system, both in form and content, would have been far less challenging. However, despite the severe damage to the Shi’a culture during the periods of concealment and precaution, the scholars, as the guardians of Shi’a culture, preserved it with great sacrifices, enduring heavy wounds, and entrusted this precious legacy to the present generation.

Indeed, the Shi’a school of thought was the cause and the initiator of the revolutionary movement that led to the Islamic Republic today. However, in the analysis of the correctness of decisions and the critique of their effectiveness, one should not mistake the cause of the revolution for the sustaining cause; for the fourteen infallible figures collectively held power for only about a decade, and we have no direct access to their infallibility during the Age of Occultation. What remains from them are their traditions, which were also subjected to unfortunate events, and the passage of time, especially the policy of prohibiting the transmission of Hadith in the early centuries of Islam, reduced much of it while adding distortions due to the oppressive policies of the caliphs.

For the Islamic Revolution to continue, it needs to value its young forces today and provide them with an environment for research and open yet substantiated dialogue, enabling them to confront the challenges of the revolution with scientific jihad and cultural revolution.

Analysis of Global Societies

The clergy, in addition to focusing on Iranian society, must also be attentive to the global community. In their interactions with different societies, the Shi’a clergy should be mindful of whether those societies have arrived at power through a ruler’s leadership and are governed by the state, or whether they are governance-oriented. If these countries are secular, they are backward societies, but if they lean towards secularism, they are more developed. Additionally, governance-oriented countries will experience a form of renaissance in the future, and their overall societal structure will change in the next one and a half centuries, though this path will be difficult. Even in countries with governance-oriented structures, despite appearing democratic and popular, rulers are often unwilling to relinquish power, and they are even willing to sacrifice the people for their own interests. In general, it is impossible for a country with a governance-oriented structure to have a people-centered society. The democracy in such countries often hides tyranny and serves betrayal of the people.

The Connection Between Individual Rationality and Spirituality

The human unconscious and conscious mind have a spiritual pull towards the metaphysical world, which is bound by sacredness and spirituality. A psychological study of individuals can reveal their spiritual and historical journey, much like a skilled painter who, by studying the characteristics of the eye, can design the entire face and body in proportion. Similarly, one can understand the unconscious of an individual by delving into their conscious mind. The unconscious is the deeply ingrained and hidden layers that belong to the past, while the conscious is the surface-level, active layer that pertains to the present. Psychology does not differentiate between these layers, except as described. Religion has referred to the unconscious as the innate nature of humans, which is an inner state that seeks out God and the metaphysical realms, guiding thoughts towards them. Human spirituality, which is rooted in the unconscious mind, has historically been corrupted by power-hungry rulers, fraudulent scholars, and other deceitful figures who have manipulated religion and philosophy to steer humanity away from truth, leading people to submit to their rule and control.

In the past, humans regarded monarchs and rulers as divine figures or the representatives of God on Earth, a belief reinforced by scholars and clergy who either encouraged it through pseudo-scientific arguments or through trickery, sorcery, and manipulation, blending them with gold, power, and deceit to control the people’s thoughts. These rulers and scholars held the awareness of the masses in their hands, manipulating it to serve their desires.

Today, while humanity has moved beyond the idea of deifying rulers and gods, and recognizes God in His unique and exalted position, people continue to believe in a metaphysical God, not the image presented by priests, popes, and other self-proclaimed religious authorities. Humanity, having been betrayed by those claiming to represent the divine, now doubts the credibility of these figures, and has turned directly to God and spirituality, not through the lens of institutionalized religion. This direct connection with spirituality is strong, and people now have a much stronger attachment to their personal conception of God than to any institutionalized religious figure or clergy.

In the modern age, people are increasingly seeking spirituality in ways that are grounded in direct experience and empirical science, not in superstitions or dogmas presented by false clergy or leaders. This era of spirituality is about honoring authentic spiritual experiences that can be scientifically explored and understood. The clergy must evolve to offer systems of thought that align with this new reality, and link the historical processes of power and knowledge to the scientific theories that can provide solutions to modern spiritual challenges.

The clergy’s task is to build a collective spiritual consciousness, helping people to recognize the falsehoods and dangers presented by the political manipulators and false spiritual leaders, and guide them towards the true path of spirituality, knowledge, and wisdom.

The battle between science and spirituality in the modern world is one of the central challenges facing humanity.

It should be noted that this thought centres on humanity, and its fundamental difference from Western theories is that they consider laws and social systems as the way to escape the despotism and exploitation of rulers. They focus on engineering society, while we speak of humanity and psychological efforts for individuals.

Today’s world seeks to control the conflicts of life through social communication and law, yet the social systems that are put in place do not merely restrain these conflicts but, in a hidden manner, use them for the benefit of the powerful, offering a hidden altar and death traps. The world is pregnant with colonisation and exploitation, and through its systems, it aims to bind the people to its power, using them as tools for politicians and benefiting from science to serve power. However, power should serve science, and science should serve the people. Right now, science does not act honestly with people. Sociologists, psychologists, and experts in psychological warfare and soft wars always design the most accurate and complex strategies to lower the intelligence quotient and awareness of society or brainwash the public, making them so preoccupied with imaginary conspiracies and dangers from others that they remain oblivious to their own slaughter, walking unknowingly into the traps set by human hunters—those who emerged from the seed of Satan.

The clerical community must base its scholarly efforts and propagation on the premise that humans should return to themselves and rediscover their humanity; otherwise, until they rediscover themselves, any technology or expertise placed in their hands will merely lead them to slaughter, like grass put before sheep to guide them to the slaughterhouse.

It is hoped that humanity will have the intelligence to recognise its own slaughterhouses. We are willing to sacrifice ourselves out of love so that humanity may understand the death traps it lays out for itself with its own ballot papers. This is the work of psychologists, particularly social psychologists.

One of the key factors contributing to the oblivion regarding the death traps created by human hunters is economic poverty. A person who is poor, so engulfed in their problems, is unable to reflect on the guiding systems and the killing fields around them. They are concerned with the nightly bread for their family, not with the slaughter awaiting them.

Modern societies are governed by hidden hunters—hunters who always have allies, protectors, and bodyguards who are profit-driven. These allies, unaware that the dollars they receive are like poisoned grains set in mouse traps, do not realise that their apparent greed has a hidden dagger within it, one which will one day pierce their own hearts. They may very well become the first prey for those human-like hunters. These allies have not yet reached the intellectual maturity to understand that the public is also ensnared by their emotions and feelings, playing the role of those allies, who with their own free will, lead themselves and their families to the guillotine of the bloodthirsty executioners. The psychological bombardment and media warfare keeps them asleep in a comfortable dream, a dream that seems pleasant but ends in death. Only spiritual education can awaken them to recognise the killers of humanity, for although science has sidelined the scholars and taken its place in leading humanity, instead of serving humanity and guiding it to health and happiness, it has turned to the exploitation of the masses for the benefit of modern-day human hunters.

Today, universities and scientific institutions, if captured by human hunters, breed the very swamp traps of death, becoming the mounted defence of hidden executioners and inventing human hunting systems, theorising about their optimal use, and cloaking colonisation and exploitation within the academic world. They manipulate the emotions of the public to unconsciously accept the slavery of the executioners. Although science appears to serve human rights and drafts laws, it is not the book of law or the law itself that matters; rather, what matters is whether human hunters have hidden behind the guise of law, using it as a dark force to pursue their own selfish aims. The key lies in identifying these killing fields, and it is only when these fields are dismantled that the law becomes valuable and its power is realised.

While we recommend that the clerical community values Ijtihad (jurisprudential reasoning) and strives to produce knowledge, the scientific propositions produced by this community will only be beneficial to humanity if, in the first place, they identify and attack these killing fields. Until all these hidden lairs are eradicated, they must exert all their effort and guide humanity to a level of maturity where it can identify the executioners in all their professional disguises. Otherwise, even if the Holy Qur’an becomes the universally accepted law, unless the implementer is aware and accompanies it with the status of infallibility or just Ijtihad—which replaces it—it cannot guarantee the health and happiness of humanity, and humanity will fall into the hands of modern-day human hunters.

Creating a Healthy Wave

The Shia clergy must identify free-thinking, healthy individuals around the world and, through their centralised and unified management, expose the hunters of each region. With the help of mass media, especially investing in televised networks, they should create a vast and healthy movement in opposition to political and imperialist movements. Through local, free-thinking, and freedom-loving forces, irrespective of their creed or faith, they should aim to create a “healthy wave” in the world, familiarising the public with the human killing fields. This wave should be scientifically supported and be a movement of awareness-raising, not one created for personal or group interests. Otherwise, it will become just another killing field of humanity, wounding the innate truth-seeking nature of humans and losing global trust, driving them to embrace the spiritual God of the West, while turning away from the God introduced in Shia Islam and the family of infallibility.

The clerical community must strive to create such a wave in the global community. Today, imperialistic countries are using this very policy to change societal outlooks and even governments. The waves created today by those in power, wealth, and politics are designed and executed by them, and it is they who, within a short period, change the culture and beliefs of nations by creating a wave. The culture of any society is not inherent, and therefore, changeable, transformable, and susceptible to shifts in all aspects of its structure. Societies can be drawn into changes, even along longitudinal, lateral, and deep axes, and change can occur. Those in power, through their control over resources and the expertise of specialists, introduce their control and influence into societies, shaping the public’s perceptions, emotions, and feelings, even in ways that affect their natural inclinations. They create waves and soft wars, manipulating entire nations, and their policies impact the collective moral and emotional fabric of society, altering their attitudes and beliefs, such as when the Sunni rulers influenced the culture of Iranians towards Sunnism or when the Safavids shaped them towards Shia Islam.

The Killing Fields of Soft War

The rate of change in free countries is accelerating. However, in areas where there is an autocratic ruler, despotism will lead the people to fatigue, disbelief, and despondency, thus paving the way for a change in government. Especially since today’s world, with the advancements in communication tools and the intellectual orientation of humanity, is not susceptible to captivity, and people cannot be restrained with policies that aim to keep them in a metaphorical cage. Therefore, the way to infiltrate and conquer such societies is through cultural invasion and the injection of knowledge.

A society is subservient to knowledge. The injection of knowledge leads to the formation of culture. If knowledge serves the exploiters, it will ensnare the masses in a colonial culture. Today, there is no need for military invasions to conquer nations; it suffices for the invaders to have intellectual cavalrymen who lead with their theories, producing knowledge to shape the culture they wish to impose. Without the intellectual defences of critical scholars, societies can easily be overcome by the influx of television series and literature. The soft war is one of the killing fields where entire societies, not just groups, are manipulated and led to their downfall, and it becomes the most effective battlefield for conquering nations and governments. The strategy for such wars is carefully tailored to each society’s beliefs.

The intellectual and clerical domains must, in their efforts to conquer hearts and minds and nations, have officers proficient in the religious sciences, capable of engaging in dialogue with the people of the world in an artistic struggle, armed with knowledge that is genuinely useful.

The Death Trap of Transforming Shariah into Spirituality

One of the key strategies in cultural invasions is to capitalise on the fact that people have been religious for thousands of years and will continue to be. Therefore, a killing field is created where religion is downgraded from its rightful position in Shariah to a mere form of spirituality, removing the legal and moral duties of religion, and replacing them with an attachment to the supernatural and a god without commandments. Because religious leaders have made people uncertain about religious obligations and, in pursuit of their own interests, have deviated from the true teachings of Shariah, it becomes a pretext for the hunters to offer a form of spirituality, based on individual reason, which leads people to stray from the traditional law-based practices.

Such an approach represents the highest point of the battle for scholars of the Shia community, forces who must now undergo rigorous training to defend humanity and the people. They must recognise and neutralise the death traps disguised as spirituality. Spirituality, as presented in Shia Islam, is enduring, as the emotional and spiritual nature of the people, rooted in thousands of years of tradition, cannot be erased. It can, however, be purified and directed towards the teachings of the Family of Infallibility and Purity.

The Challenge of Identifying the Health Indicators of a Society

A society that is progressing healthily is one that distances itself from the three elements of “poverty”, “ignorance”, and “despotism”. If the general course of a a nation’s culture, education, and governance is organised towards removing these three factors, a nation will surely develop and prosper. The intellectual and religious authorities must lead the people in realising this vision, protecting them from the traps of human hunters. It is necessary to establish a system for the governance of Shia culture, a system that surpasses the constitution itself; for the constitution applies only to a nation, while seminaries must lay down their own rules and principles of governance, which in turn govern the Shia culture. This system should be based on a culture rooted in infallibility, one that has only been around for fourteen hundred years. This system must safeguard the Shia clergy and culture for thousands of years to come. Therefore, formulating a scientific and cultural system for the seminaries is a far more challenging task than drafting a national constitution for a country, and its costs, no matter how high, must be borne, for the matter is of utmost importance.

The creation of a charter for a seminary is very different from writing one for a school or an academic institution. Generally speaking, this task should be done across all fields, where everyone is free to speak and present their views. When drafting the constitution for the seminaries, general theorising must take place first, followed by consensus. Any attempt at reform or transformation in the seminaries, without holding this constitution in hand, would be futile and at times dangerous, as such efforts will fail to transcend the superficial form and structure.

It is necessary, in the process of drafting a comprehensive plan and constitution for the seminaries, to gather the views of all the scholars and theorists in the related fields, and then examine the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective. In the planning and policymaking of the seminaries, there must be a shift from focusing on details to a broader perspective. Initially, consensus among the religious scholars on the issues at hand should be emphasised, and only then should the areas of disagreement be addressed. This will mark the starting point for the drafting of a fundamental and consensual constitution for the seminaries. After this, the draft should be presented to all well-known scholars, so they can add their thoughts, and if they have criticisms, these can be raised, with the constitution then being revised based on those views to ensure it benefits from expert opinions. The goal in creating this codified and agreed-upon law is to reform the structure of the seminary and systematically organise all its activities, particularly in the realm of religious knowledge production and Ijtihad.

When presenting viewpoints, the scholars themselves and their views are both of significance. It is necessary to solicit opinions from all figures and theorists in all the relevant fields, rather than selectively considering the views of only a few scholars.

This law should not be local or dependent on specific individuals or a government; rather, it must be a law that facilitates the exchange of ideas, is logical and scientific, and also consensual and in line with the standards of academic institutions worldwide. In this way, if it is presented to other academic centres, they should recognise that Shia seminaries have a structured educational, scientific, and cultural system.

This law must be agreed upon so that no influential individual can sidestep it or avoid its implementation. If an “educational system” is formed within the framework of the constitution of the seminaries, the root of the seminaries’ issues will dry up, and conflicts will be avoided.

The first step towards systematising the seminaries is drafting a comprehensive manifesto and roadmap, so it can be stated that the constitution of the Shia seminaries is as follows. This law will not only address the principles of the issues, but also precisely define many clauses and subtopics in both rational and transmitted sciences, and will carefully define all the topics relevant to the seminaries, so that each seminary knows its duties and the boundaries of its work.

Just as for the framers of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the form of governance was of vital importance, determining that it would begin with an Islamic government—because this constitution was written by a number of seminary scholars with a specific viewpoint on governance—and they extended this perspective to all the principles of the law, just as the Constitution of the Constitutional Revolution was founded on the National Assembly, which was believed to secure their political rights by forming such a body, or as the Italian constitution begins by establishing work as its first principle, the seminary manifesto must also centre its structure around the genealogy of the clergy community. The purpose of drafting the constitution of the seminary is to train individuals who, like the divine prophets, will produce religious knowledge and engage in divine action. The constitution of the seminary must aim to make students resemble the prophets and the saints of God, training scholarly forces who will be caring and protective of the people, who will be filled with sincerity and purity, spreading goodwill and love among the people.

The Works of Ayatollah Nekounam (May His Shadow Last)

• Denial of God and the Principles of Atheism
• The Book of Clarifications (2 Volumes)
• A Selection of Clarifications
• The Heights of Shia Jurisprudence (9 Volumes)
• Contemporary Jurisprudence
• Medical Jurisprudence
• The Rituals of Hajj
• Tafseer al-Huda (50 Volumes)
• The Science of Istikhara (5 Volumes)
• An Introduction to the Science of Istikhara with the Holy Quran
• Verse by Verse Light
• Jurisprudence of Music and Singing (7 Volumes)
• The Logic of Music
• Analytical History of Music in Islam
• Woman; The Eternal Victim of History (4 Volumes)
• The Book of Liberation (3 Volumes)
• The Truth of the Sharia in the Jurisprudence of the Knot (2 Volumes)
• The Red Path (15 Volumes)
• Beloveds and Lovers
• The Beloved of Love
• The Face of Love
• The Springs of Life
• Passages and Escapes in Society
• The Grasp (2 Volumes)
• The Collected Works of Nekounam (9 Volumes)
• The Divan of Love and Knowledge (3 Volumes)
• The Stations of the Mystics
• The Book of Love
• The Science of Life (2 Volumes)
• The Science of Remembrance
• The New Foundations of Rights (2 Volumes)
• The Economics of Religious Seminaries and the Stipends of Religious Scholars
• The Science of Interpretation, The Science of Exegesis
• The Spiritual Chambers
• The Clear Water of Mysticism
• The Redeeming State
• The Image of Prophethood
• The Culture of Sharia and the Physics of Nature
• The Candle of Life
• The Two Rendezvous of Love
• The Structure of Poetry
• Monotheism
• The Mirage of Mysticism or the Scatterings of the Breeze
• Woman and Life
• A Tribute to the Clergy
• The Hidden Discovery
• An Introduction to Understanding the Holy Quran
• The Imam of Truth; Fatima 3, The Imam of Love; Hussain 7
• The Chain of Equality and the Chain of Oppression
• The Night, Solitude, and the Thunder of Silence
• The World of Jinn and the Deception of Mankind
• How to Live, How to Die
• A Healthy Economy, A Sick Economy
• Body Language
• The Culture of Mysticism
• The Book of Friendship
• The Discourse of Quranic Knowledge
• The Song of the Lovers
• The Tale of Love
• Freedom in Bondage
• Knowledge Acquisition and the Path of Violence
• Woman; A Paradise of Beauty and Education
• The Islamic Revolution and the Republic of Muslims
• The Seven Rules of Divine Conduct
• Life, Love, or Law
• Seminary Life and Professional Commitment
• The Poison of Rebellion
• Ali 7; The Difficult Guardianship
• The Melody of the Devout
• The Phoenix of Love
• The Extinction of the Face
• The Tremor of Love
• The Pain of Separation
• The Disheveled Locks
• The Wonder of Essence
• The Tale of the Hair
• The Arch of the Eyebrow
• The City of Eternity
• The Dawn of Revelation
• The Sword of Fate
• The Whirlpool of Delusion
• The Jewel of Existence
• The Image of the Truth
• The Owner of Solitude
• The Night of Exile
• The Scent of Conclusion
• The Gathering Candle
• The Play of Imagination
• The Eye of Hope
• The Spring of Mercy
• The Heart of the Wounded
• The Blossom of the Flower
• The Dance of the Sword
• The Garment of Eternity
• Light and Joy
• The Eye of Perception
• The Mercy of Comfort
• The Tamed Nature
• The Land of the Unknown
• The Retribution of Love
• The Coquetry of the Beloved
• The Witness of Solitude
• The Companion of Companions
• The Breath of the Heart
• The Ecstasy of the Mad
• Drunk and Sober
• The Purity of the Heart
• The Treasure Without a Place
• The Desire of the Beloved
• The Presence of the Essence
• The Faces and the Faces
• The Agile Lover
• The Solitude’s State
• The Rebellion of Desires
• The Tent of Eternity
• The Master of the House
• The Pure Appearance
•  The Bait of Greed
•  Fallen Hair
•  The Drum of Death
•  The Stature of Imagination
•  A Hut on the Path
•  Drunken Narcissus
•  The Unity of the Intoxicated
•  The Nearness of Exile
•  The Battle of Water
•  The Fire of Wrath
•  The Longing for Union
•  The Clamor
•  The Opponent in the Battle
•  The Dwelling of Hope
•  The Harbinger of Misfortune
•  The Covenant
•  The Burning and the Making
•  Secrets and Delights
•  The Blood of the Heart
•  The Nearness of the Beloved
•  The Pure Currency
•  The Book of Guardianship
•  Behavioral Admonitions
•  Anthropological Propositions
•  Political Strategies
•  The Wisdom of Philosophy
•  Wonders of Health and Soul-Care
•  Capable Spouses and Managers
•  Soft and Digital Interaction
•  The Book of God
•  The Sincere Writings of Seminary Scholars
•  Free Thought of Seminary Scholars and the Tyranny of the Oppressors
•  Hajj: Abrahamic or Organisational
•  Sufficient Knowledge
•  The Ritual of Reasoning
•  The Glad Tidings of the Prophet 9
•  The Fountain; The Point of Existence
•  The Prophet of Love; Hussain 7
•  Life and Death in Eternity
•  The Green Tent of the Advent
•  The Religious Scholars’ Outlook
•  Religious Messaging
•  The Image of Seminary Life
•  The Principles and Rules of Religious Preaching
•  What Do the Usulis Say?
•  What Do the Akhbaris Say?
•  The Unseen, Night, and Vigil
•  Islam: A Perpetually Living Identity
•  Infallibility: A Divine Blessing
•  Modern Philosophy
•  The Levels of Guardianship
•  The Worlds of Crystal
•  The Melodies of Mysticism
•  The Prescription for Mysticism
•  Models of Religious Thought
•  The Journey of Thought
•  The Principles and Rules of Dream Interpretation
•  What Do the Usulis and Akhbaris Say?
•  Physical Resurrection: A Religious and Philosophical Truth
•  Physical Resurrection
•  Eternal Damnation, Fire, and Everlasting Punishment
•  Humanity and the World of Life
•  The Essentials of Religious Study and Semantics of Religion
•  The Ideal City or the Modern Jungle
•  The System of Domination
•  Why and How the Islamic Revolution Happened
•  Social Problems
•  The Islamic Revolution: Challenges and Plans
•  The Cultural Revolution
•  Seminaries: Challenges and Plans
•  Political Perspectives
•  Clergy and Leadership
•  A Leaf from the Pathology of the Islamic Revolution
•  The Pain and Social Problems
•  Religious Scholars and Simple Living
•  Mysticism and Its Stations
•  The Presence of the Present and the Absent
•  The Jurisprudential Principles
•  Divine Guidance
•  The Circle of Existence
•  The Inherent Knowledge of God
•  God Worship and Human Nature
•  The Mystic and Perfection
•  The Framework of Perfection
•  Sleep, Night, and Vigil
•  The Teaching of Iranian Musical Stations
•  The New Framework of Shia Jurisprudence
•  The Cry of Love
•  The Method of Enforcing the Limits
•  Alcoholic Beverages
•  Patriarchy of Men or Women
•  A New Inquiry into Miracles and Charisma
•  True Scholars; The Followers of the Prophets
•  Verses of Jurisprudence and Fiqh al-Quran
•  The Introduction to the Explanation of the Principles of Monotheism
•  The Quran and Economic Contexts
•  The Infallibility and Authority of the Quran
•  The List of Masculine and Feminine Terms or Men and Women in the Quran
•  An Introduction to the Understanding of the Quran
•  The Method of Interpretation from the Perspective of the Quran
•  The True Leaders of Islam
•  The Method of the Infallible Imams: Revolutionary Movements
•  The Necessity of Knowledge of the Light of the Ahl al-Bayt
•  The Fountain; The Honour of the Sacred Divine
•  Intimate Conversations
•  Social Dialogues
•  Five Philosophical Essays
•  An Introduction to the Science of Principles, Rijal, and Diraya
•  The Everlasting History
•  Shia Leaders in the Age of Occultation
•  Memories; A Mark on the Face of the Mind
•  The Creation of Humanity and Materialism
•  Commentaries on Forbidden Earnings
•  The Shia Jurisprudential Hadith Index
•  Jurisprudential Commentaries
•  The Nine Jurisprudential Treatises
•  The Seven Theological Treatises
•  The Sunbuki Debates in the Principles of Sciences
•  The Hadith Index of Legal Verses
•  Guardianship and Government
•  Music and Dance
•  The Principles of Jurisprudence and Its Five Scholars
•  The Simple Body and Its Divisions
•  A Commentary on the Principles and Benefits
•  Five Political Treatises
•  The Causes of Revelation
•  The Subtlety of the Rain