Economics of Religious Seminaries and the Stipends of Religious Students

Economics of Religious Seminaries and the Stipends of Religious Students

By Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Nokonam (may his soul rest in peace)

A Reflection on the Livelihood Issues of Seminary Students and Clerics and the Management of Seminary Economics

Bibliographic Information

• Author: Nokonam, Mohammad Reza (b. 1327)
• Title: The Economics of Religious Seminaries and the Stipends of Religious Students: A Reflection on the Livelihood Issues of Seminary Students and Clerics and the Management of Seminary Economics / Mohammad Reza Nokonam.
• Publisher: Sobhe Farda, Tehran, 2014
• Pages: 200 p.
• ISBN: 978-600-7347-13-3
• Cataloging Status: FIPA
• Subject:
  • Religious seminaries – Financial affairs
  • Clergy – Salaries and wages
  • Seminary students – Salaries and wages
• Dewey Decimal Classification: 200/92
• National Bibliography Number: 3443502

Preface
Clerics: Faces of Divine Victory

At the outset of this book, it is fitting to remember my esteemed teacher, Ayatollah Allameh Qomshaei (may his soul rest in peace), who viewed the seminary students with deep affection, especially those engaged in scientific struggle and relentless academic pursuit. He seemed to see the divine victory in their faces. He would become joyful and sweet when he observed promising students with strong academic dedication. Indeed, these individuals were deeply connected to religion, viewing it as more important than their parents, children, or any worldly attachment.

The late Ayatollah Sheikh Morteza Haeri (may his soul rest in peace) was similarly devoted, embodying this spirit of spirituality and purity. The aim of this book is to speak about those students whose every moment is dedicated to the Mahdi (may Allah hasten his reappearance), and any injustice or disrespect toward them is unforgivable. Undermining them means undermining religion, the Qur’an, and the exalted culture of the infallible Imams (peace be upon them).

In this work, we aim to reflect with fairness on a critical issue — one that plays the most significant role in the lives of seminary students, determining their success or failure: their financial support. Before diving into the main discussion, we must clarify the differences between a seminary student’s life and the life of a general member of society or an “urban cleric,” to ensure the reader can differentiate between the two. The difference between them is as vast as that between Heaven and Hell: one is sincerely devoted to serving religion, offering their entire being for this cause, while the other manipulates religion for personal gain, striving for wealth, power, or fame at the cost of their spiritual integrity.

Many books have been written about religious scholars, clerics, and their way of life, but to date, no one has written a book specifically about the financial aspects and religious dues related to them.

The Need for Criticism of the Clergy’s Financial Issues

Books written about the lives of religious scholars often lean toward praise, rarely addressing the flaws or shortcomings of the clergy or critically analyzing their lifestyle or studies. Recent years have seen a few films on this matter, but they have generally resorted to harsh, physical criticisms, rather than a soft, scholarly critique.

This book is written in such a context, starting in the early 2000s, and tackles one of the most sensitive issues of the seminaries: stipends and the financial structure within religious seminaries, managed by religious authorities. It critically examines this system and offers suggestions for improvement. Scholars and critics in the field of religious studies should undertake deeper investigations on the financial issues of the seminaries. Without a doubt, any effort to improve the management of seminary affairs will benefit the religious community, and by extension, the Shia world and the entire Islamic world.

Criticism of religious scholars should be based on justice and honesty, looking at both their virtues and their flaws. As in books about historical figures, it would be beneficial if such writings discussed both their strengths and weaknesses. By doing so, the debates would not be overly idealistic or detached from the real-world challenges that religious scholars face.

It would be commendable if all books about prominent figures of the past were written with fairness, acknowledging both their virtues and their shortcomings, so that we can appreciate their true excellence and avoid creating a mythical or unrealistic image of them.

The Necessity of Financial Support for Religious Scholars

Religious scholars bear the responsibility of understanding and disseminating religious knowledge, which encompasses all aspects of life. They are tasked with explaining, reforming, and elucidating the broad rules of society. A cleric or a seminary student is someone who seeks religious knowledge, and through this knowledge, they contribute to the community’s spiritual and intellectual welfare.

Such a person is a scholar of life, perceiving both the past and the future. They have studied the works of past scholars and addressed the significant challenges of their time, finding solutions based on divine guidance. The scholar, by virtue of their spiritual dedication, is capable of leading and guiding society, if given the opportunity. However, it is essential that they focus their efforts on religious matters and not be distracted by worldly concerns.

A cleric who struggles to meet their basic needs is unable to devote their full attention to religious scholarship. This is comparable to a construction worker who is given dough instead of bricks or a mason who is handed sand and brick rather than their necessary materials. Neither of these workers can perform their tasks effectively in such a situation. Similarly, a religious scholar needs financial stability to focus on their studies and research.

The duration of the scholar’s productive work in a religious context is limited by the breadth of Islamic knowledge, and every individual has personal needs. If they are forced to spend their time addressing these needs, they are distracted from their vital intellectual work. If society neglects the financial needs of religious scholars, it not only harms the scholars but also diminishes the spiritual guidance and wisdom available to the community.

The Intensity of Religious Scholarship and the Creation of Knowledge

To understand the difficulty of religious scholarship and knowledge production, one can refer to the saying: “The ink of scholars is more precious than the blood of martyrs.” This quote refers to the significance of the scholarly pen, not the person of the scholar itself. The task of writing and producing religious knowledge is more difficult than martyrdom because it requires years of hard intellectual labor, struggling with profound thoughts and research. The scholar’s work demands an endurance that far surpasses the physical sacrifice of a martyr on the battlefield.

In conclusion, if society ensures that the material needs of scholars are met, they will have the space to grow intellectually. In turn, the entire community will benefit from the fruits of their knowledge, fostering both worldly and spiritual well-being.

The Greater Struggle of Religious Scholars: Knowledge and the Role of the Scholar in Islamic Tradition

In the second volume of Bihar al-Anwar, page 14, the following profound reflection is presented:

Such narrations highlight the understanding that the measure of knowledge and the arduousness of producing it are immense. If we carefully examine the meaning of the highly significant hadith: “The ink of the scholars outweighs the blood of martyrs,” we realize the profound impact that religious writing has on the scholar or researcher, especially when the words penned are not only scientifically precise but also beautifully eloquent. The writings that are not only correct in content but also articulated with an impeccable linguistic quality, conveying their meanings perfectly. Moreover, it is important to consider how such writing affects the scholar’s nerves, mind, and overall life. This impact can even lead to a loss of comfort and tranquility.

The hadith places a special value on the scholar, even suggesting that the scholar’s work, which may often involve deep intellectual toil, is considered more difficult and significant than the efforts of a soldier on the battlefield. The soldier, who sometimes faces the most extreme environmental and physical conditions, does not necessarily suffer the same mental and emotional strain. This matter is particularly intense for the religious scholar, especially when it concerns topics such as Tawhid (Divine Oneness) and Wilayah (Authority), which create additional pressures that lead the scholar to a state that is far removed from the natural course of life. The scholar of religion, in this context, is akin to a soldier engaged in the “Greater Jihad,” while a soldier in a physical battlefield is involved in the “Lesser Jihad.” In the Lesser Jihad, one might be awarded medals or even monetary compensation, while in the “Greater Jihad” of religious scholarship, individuals may face isolation, slander, and accusations of heresy or anti-Islamic sentiments, which can sever their connections with social and community life.

The religious scholar, much like a soldier, experiences a deep spiritual and emotional burden. Unlike the soldier in the battlefield, who may occasionally be tempted by vanity or pride, the scholar, when writing late into the night or during the solitude of the day, and receiving criticism and insults, finds no room for such pride. The scholar, or martyr, who harbors such pride, finds no lasting place for it in the face of the arduous journey of intellectual endeavor.

The essence of this hadith indicates that while the martyr has an extended role and can intercede for others on the Day of Judgement, the religious scholar, who is engaged in spreading the true teachings of the faith, has an even higher position. In fact, the scholar can intercede for the martyrs themselves, without needing their intercession.

As previously mentioned, this hadith compares the ink of scholars with the blood of martyrs, not the scholar’s person with that of the martyr. Perhaps this comparison is drawn because people can physically observe the ink in the scholar’s hand, whereas the nature of knowledge is abstract and often unseen. This analogy serves as a means to make the concept of religious knowledge more tangible, using the ink and blood as symbols to represent the eternal legacy of the scholar’s intellectual contribution.

To understand the full depth of this hadith, we must recognize that the most sacred and noble reality we know is “martyrdom.” Therefore, a knowledge that surpasses martyrdom in magnitude must be something extraordinary, attainable only by those whose inner disposition aligns with the inheritance of the prophets and the friends of God. Even martyrs, in the face of this truth, submit themselves. Only those who have reached a level of purity, intention, and action that surpasses the sacrifice of martyrs can truly regard the scholar’s ink as superior to their blood.

Martyrs have given up their wealth, families, homes, and lives, going into battle with courage. The scholar, in contrast, surpasses even these sacrifices, giving up everything they have—moment by moment—for the pursuit of knowledge. This task is incredibly difficult. The scholar must remain detached from worldly matters for long periods, often over decades, and in doing so, maintains the perpetual continuity of knowledge.

Shiite scholars have endured numerous hardships in safeguarding the culture and boundaries of Shia Islam. Those who are not familiar with this endeavor cannot comprehend the struggles and sacrifices these scholars have made. Writers, especially those who pay close attention to detail, understand how deeply these scholars have toiled. Writing a single precise and flawless sentence can be mentally exhausting and frustrating, while these scholars spend their entire lives engaged in such intellectual work, never switching from a purely mental, non-physical labor.

The Issue of Abandoning Livelihood in the Name of Religious Scholarship

Historically, some of the akhbari scholars criticized the usuli scholars for abandoning work, as they believed that livelihood is a serious obligation for all. They considered it a deviation from the example of the Prophets and Imams (peace be upon them) to turn the pursuit of religious knowledge into a full-time occupation, arguing that everyone should gain sufficient religious knowledge according to their needs, while still pursuing a livelihood.

The akhbari view held that studying Islamic sciences did not necessarily conflict with working, as every individual could allocate part of their time to religious learning and another part to a trade. This view aligns with the notion that all individuals should provide for themselves and not burden others or society, as the Prophets and Imams were known to have worked and supported themselves.

However, this view must be critiqued. If we understand “work” only as physical labor, we miss the profound intellectual and spiritual labor involved in acquiring and spreading religious knowledge. Intellectual work, such as study, reflection, and writing, is also work—if not harder and more demanding than manual labor. It occupies one’s entire being, especially when the aim is not simply individual benefit, but rather the well-being of the broader community.

Religious scholars who dedicate themselves to the study of religious sciences, particularly those who are entrusted with guiding others and upholding the integrity of the faith, must focus entirely on this intellectual task. It is not only their right but their responsibility to engage fully in this pursuit of knowledge. The development and dissemination of religious knowledge require deep, uninterrupted attention and should not be undermined by the need to fulfill mundane tasks.

In response to the objection that “the Prophets and Imams worked and earned a living,” it is essential to note that while they performed certain physical tasks, they were divinely guided and did not face the intellectual struggles and challenges that human scholars must endure. The Prophets did not require formal education in the way others do, nor did they struggle with the teaching of religious principles. Their knowledge was divinely granted, and their role was to lead and guide, rather than to engage in the prolonged intellectual process of learning and teaching.

When we compare those who must labor for years in studying and teaching religious knowledge with the Prophets, who were divinely inspired, we see a clear distinction. While the Prophets and Imams worked with their hands, their intellectual and spiritual stature was entirely different from that of human scholars. They did not undergo the same struggles in acquiring or transmitting knowledge.

Moreover, religious scholars must also assume the responsibilities of leadership and guiding the community. This responsibility is so demanding that despite their tireless efforts, many scholars feel they have not yet fully fulfilled their duty to the people and the faith. This immense responsibility should not be diluted by mundane concerns, as the wellbeing of the faith and the people relies on the scholar’s uninterrupted focus on their work.

When religious scholars focus on physical labor to support themselves, it often leads to a decline in the cultural and spiritual vitality of the community. History shows that when religious scholars were relieved of financial concerns, the community prospered spiritually and intellectually. Conversely, when scholars were forced to focus on earning a living, the enemies of Islam gained greater influence, and the faith suffered.

Anyone who delves into such matters is, in fact, targeting the very roots of religion. A scholar should wield the pen; not merely the tools of physical labor. One must consider that, at the moment when a scholar is engaged in work, where they have fallen short and what they are compensating for with their efforts. These distractions have led to the current state where religion is being undermined and the religious community is on the decline. A clear example of this is the life of Allameh Tabatabai (may Allah have mercy on him), who spent ten years of his blessed life not in further enriching Al-Mizan but rather working in the fields of Tabriz. When he wielded a hoe, Al-Mizan consisted of two volumes. But once he became materially secure and able to reside in Qom, replacing the hoe with a pen, he completed it in twenty volumes, producing a commentary that has become a source of pride for Shi’ism and the entire Islamic world—an eloquent testament to the boundless grandeur of the Holy Qur’an.

The idea of separating livelihood from religious duties is either a malevolent scheme by the enemy, the result of decayed and ignorant thoughts, or the manifestation of individuals who lack the patience for learning and research. These individuals seek an easy escape from the heavy burdens of knowledge, research, guidance, and preaching, seeking to satisfy themselves by presenting themselves as pious, all while fostering delusions that lead to deviation and misguidance.

In summary, several key points emerge from this discussion that should always be kept in mind to prevent deviation:

1. Work and effort are essential for every responsible and accountable person who is capable of doing so; idleness and laziness are condemned in any logic or ideology.
2. While every action that arises from human will is considered work, one must always strive for what is good and reasonable, avoiding improper or meaningless endeavors.
3. Work and effort are not limited to manual labor such as hoeing and digging; education and the pursuit of knowledge are also significant forms of work that demand dedication and should never be underestimated. Even individuals with great intellectual capacity and ambition acknowledge their subjugation to the pursuit of knowledge and self-improvement.
4. Religious knowledge and the understanding of Islamic laws—especially Shi’ism—require significant effort and dedication, as Shi’ism, with its open door to learning and ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), involves sophisticated and profound thought.
5. The responsibility of the clergy and every Shi’ite scholar is clear: they must either engage in study and research or guidance and preaching. This rule has no third option, except for idleness and negligence, which is the greatest sin, unless there is a legitimate religious excuse to refrain.

The Reasons Behind the Obligation of Earning a Livelihood in Islam

In Islam, there are many reasons cited regarding the obligation to earn a livelihood, making this a requirement for every accountable Muslim. These reasons make no distinction between individuals, and no group is exempt. The generality of these narrations applies to all people in society, from scholars to ordinary individuals, with all being equally subject to this obligation. As such, earning a living through legitimate means and using public Islamic funds (Bait al-Mal) without performing corresponding duties is prohibited. Whether a task performed for public funds is obligatory or recommended, individual or communal, spiritual or instrumental, all individuals are required to earn their livelihood while fulfilling their religious duties.

According to numerous Islamic proofs, which are unanimously accepted by scholars, religious leaders must bear the burden of their own living and livelihood, just as others do, without exploiting Islamic resources or public wealth.

The obligation to earn a livelihood is religious, and abandoning it is prohibited, rendering the individual who neglects it detestable in the eyes of Allah. This is in line with the rational practices and customs of all societies. Taking compensation for religious duties, dedicating oneself entirely to religious studies while neglecting the pursuit of livelihood, and exploiting religious funds are all excuses and deviations. One should not abandon work and make oneself dependent on religious provisions.

Islamic public funds (Bait al-Mal) and resources should be reserved for the genuinely poor, the needy, and those who are involuntarily destitute—not those who intentionally choose to be destitute to avoid work and become a burden on religion.

Critique of the Notion that It Is Forbidden to Use Religious Funds for Earning Livelihood

The discussion regarding whether it is permissible to use religious funds for livelihood purposes is outlined both in terms of negation and affirmation. Both perspectives contain multiple topics that will be discussed in detail.

Islamic proofs—of which there are numerous—clearly establish that earning a livelihood is obligatory for every rational and accountable person, and abandoning it is prohibited. Some narrations stress this obligation with severity, with the Shariah and the Imams holding those who neglect it in disdain. Even the Prophets have been addressed regarding this issue, with historical events affirming its significance.

While there is a well-established religious duty to earn a livelihood, the requirements of pursuing religious knowledge (such as jurisprudence) may take precedence in certain circumstances. When a conflict arises between the two obligations, the pursuit of religious knowledge should be prioritized. The sustenance of scholars and students of knowledge should be supported by Islamic public funds, as the benefit of their work extends to society.

In cases where both earning a livelihood and acquiring knowledge are necessary and neither can be neglected, individuals should evaluate their personal abilities and aspirations. Those who possess intellectual capability and physical health to pursue religious knowledge should do so with full devotion. Those who find themselves more inclined to labor should follow that path, doing so with the intention of pleasing Allah. In both cases, the pursuit of knowledge and work should contribute to the advancement of society.

Conclusion: Religious Duty and Livelihood

In sum, religious knowledge and the pursuit of an honest livelihood are not mutually exclusive. The Islamic community has a responsibility to ensure that scholars can continue their work without being burdened by material concerns. Public funds can be justifiably allocated to sustain scholars whose work directly benefits society. The distinction between the pursuit of religious knowledge and the earning of a livelihood lies in the understanding that both are vital and should be managed wisely within the context of Islamic law.

The negative opinions regarding the permissibility of using religious funds for livelihood are refuted through the principles of Islam and the teachings of the Prophet and Imams. These principles support the notion that scholars, whose work contributes to the greater good, should be supported materially, allowing them to focus on their vital spiritual and intellectual duties.

One of the primary foundations of the critics, particularly the Akhbaris, is the non-obligation of paying Khums during the time of the occultation and its permissibility for the Shia. This group, in order to prove their view, refer to various reports and narrations, which will be discussed below.

The Akhbaris believe that the Khums can be waived for the Shia during the period of the occultation of Imam al-Mahdi (peace be upon him). They hold the view that Khums is permissible for the Shia, particularly during the time of the Imam’s absence. They cite narrations found in Hadith collections from the Infallibles (Ahl al-Bayt) that declare the permissibility of Khums for the Shia, specifically in the context of its permissibility in the time of occultation.

In their view, although Khums is a religious financial obligation and has a clear root in Islamic law, it is, in general, and particularly in the time of occultation—when the supporters of the Ahl al-Bayt and the Shia face countless difficulties, including exile and the dominance of falsehood and oppression— that the Imams (peace be upon them), out of kindness and gratitude, have removed this burden from their followers and have granted them their rightful share. This is similar to other obligations in Islam that may change depending on specific circumstances, such as the change in the number of Rak’ahs in prayer when one is a traveller, or the specific rules related to a woman in her menstrual period, which prohibit her from entering a mosque or touching the Qur’an.

Thus, the Imams have deemed it appropriate to relieve the Shia of this financial burden due to their struggles and exile. However…

Akhbaris’ Opponents:
The Usulis, driven by their own interests, argue for the obligatory nature of Khums with various reasons and impose an unnecessary burden on the believers. To substantiate their claim, they refer to some specific narrations:

a) Mohammad ibn al-Hasan narrates from Sa’d ibn Abdullah… from Abu Basir, Zurarah, and Muhammad ibn Muslim, who all report from Abu Ja’far (peace be upon him), quoting Amir al-Mu’minin, Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him), who said:
“People have perished because they did not give us our due right. However, know that our Shia and their ancestors are exempt from this duty, and for them, Khums is lawful.”

From this narration, three key points are evident:

1. The “right” referred to here is financial, not related to the matter of Imamate, as it says: “They did not give us our due right.”
2. The permissibility of this right for the Shia and their ancestors is universal, and is not restricted to a specific time.
3. This permissibility is granted as a favour and due to the hardships that the Shia face, as indicated by the phrase: “Except for the Shia, all others must pay this right.”

b) A narration from Durays al-Kanasi, quoting Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), asks:
“Do you know from where adultery entered among people?” The narrator replies: “I do not know.” The Imam responds:
“It is because they do not pay Khums, the right of Ahl al-Bayt. However, for our Shia, it is lawful for them and their descendants.”

This narration explains that the prohibition on the payment of Khums leads to corruption in people’s lives, but this does not apply to the Shia, who are exempted from such a restriction.

c) A third narration states:
“This is lawful for our Shia, both those who are present and those who are absent, the living and the deceased, until the Day of Resurrection. It is only lawful for those whom we have made it lawful, and for no one else.”

In this narration, the scope of permissibility is made very clear, covering all Shia, living or dead, and extending to future generations. The Imam explicitly states that this right is only granted to the Shia.

The Akhbaris have collected over twenty narrations on this topic, each explaining the permissibility of Khums for the Shia, and in various ways. Some of these narrations discuss the severe difficulty the Shia face, while others refer to the expansive scope of this permissibility.

However, despite the clear and frequent statements in these narrations, the Usuli scholars, in accordance with their own interests, reject these narrations and do not accept the words of the Imams regarding this issue. This rejection, they argue, is a serious injustice to the Shia, as those who have the right to Khums are the ones who grant it, but those who have no claim to it refuse to allow the Shia this concession.

Critique of the Permissibility of Khums:
In response to the Akhbaris’ view, it must be stated that such an interpretation of the narrations regarding the permissibility of Khums demonstrates superficial understanding and a lack of deep analysis. The Akhbaris have accepted these narrations without proper investigation and have disregarded the abundant evidence in the Qur’an and other authentic narrations.

Before delving into the critique of this view, it is important to assert that the obligation of Khums is one of the fundamentals of the Islamic faith. It is universally acknowledged by all Islamic sects, including the Akhbaris. The obligation is not only based on Hadiths but also on a solid foundation in the Qur’an, where the concept of Khums and its distribution is discussed clearly. Disagreement exists only regarding the permissibility of Khums for certain groups during certain times.

Khums: An Essential Religious Duty
First and foremost, it should be understood that the obligation of Khums is an indisputable religious requirement in Islam. It is clearly mentioned in the Qur’an and has been confirmed by the general consensus (Ijma) of the scholars. Khums refers to the payment of one-fifth of any surplus income after basic living expenses have been covered, and it is to be distributed in six parts: one share for God, one share for the Prophet, and one share for the family of the Prophet, the Infallibles (Ahl al-Bayt).

In the absence of the Prophet, the share of God and the Prophet is given to the Imam, the representative of the Prophet. Thus, the three shares intended for the Imam are known as the “Imam’s share,” while the remaining three are designated for the poor, the orphans, and the wayfarers, collectively known as the “Share of the Sadaat.”

The obligation of Khums is not a matter of dispute among the Islamic sects, and denial of this obligation amounts to a rejection of one of the fundamental tenets of Islam. Denying the obligation of Khums is considered apostasy, as it is an outright rejection of a well-established religious requirement.

The Ownership and Right to Khums
It must be recognised that all ownership of the world and its contents, as well as the ownership of existence, ultimately belongs to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them). Everything in existence belongs to them, as they are the designated inheritors of divine authority. Thus, everything in creation is ultimately under their dominion.

This belief regarding the Imams’ ownership, although sometimes difficult to accept, is based on numerous verses and narrations. However, it does not mean that ordinary people are without rights or ownership. There are three types of ownership: real ownership (held by God), legislative ownership (held by the Infallibles), and acknowledged ownership (held by individuals based on their efforts and actions).

The Romantic Priority of the Infallible Ones (Ahl al-Bayt)

The Holy Qur’an states:
“The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves” (Qur’an, Surah Ahzab, 33:6).

This verse indicates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) holds precedence over the believers, even over their own selves, in all respects.

This precedence is absolute and applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their position or station.

It should be noted that the term “Anfus” (selves) in this verse refers to “the individuals themselves.” Therefore, the Qur’an is explicitly affirming that the Prophet, in every context and in every position, is more deserving and has precedence over the believers.

The concept of precedence in this verse means that in the event of a balance or confrontation between two desires or wills, one is preferred and takes precedence over the other. In this case, one party is the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the other is the believers. The Prophet’s will, both in material and spiritual matters, takes precedence over that of the believers, as the scope of the verse encompasses both dimensions, both natural and legislational.

According to the takwīnī guidance (divine natural guidance), which forms the framework of the Ahsan system, two inherent forces, desire and love, are instilled in every particle of existence. Each particle is created with love, and it seeks eternal perfection with passion, dancing through its journey in search of ultimate completion and the vision of God’s beauty.

Thus, every being and every believer, by nature and instinct, experiences love and desire. Like all creatures, humans admire their existence and feel affection for their lives, possessions, and loved ones. Therefore, they tend to avoid harm and seek to protect themselves from danger.

With the explanation of longitudinal ownership and the three stages of this ownership, as well as the concept of takwīnī guidance through love and desire, it becomes clear why the Qur’an places the Prophet (peace be upon him) above the believers in all aspects. The existence of the believers originates from the infallible ones, and their legislative ownership belongs to them. Just as the true owner of the existence of the infallible ones is God, the true owner of all existence is the Divine. This also clarifies the real meaning of love and desire towards God, as all existence is considered His possession and the love of God is the love for all creation.

It has been established that a believer should place the will of the Prophet (peace be upon him) above his own desires and submit all his existence to that will. Similarly, a believer should first recognize his own shortcomings and afflictions, considering himself as a shield for the Prophet and the Infallibles, regarding them as his own soul.

From the implication of the verse, it is clear that the Prophet (peace be upon him) takes precedence over the believers in all respects, and the existence of each believer ultimately belongs to the Prophet.

Therefore, a believer must prioritize his love for the Prophet and the Infallibles over his love for himself. The Prophet and the Infallibles are the true and legitimate owners, while a believer is merely a temporary steward of his own existence. This precedence is not forced, but rather it is the natural order of the universe. The believer does not suffer or resist this order but accepts it willingly.

The mention of believers in this verse highlights the significance of this precedence in relation to the believers specifically. This precedence is not exclusive to them but emphasizes the importance of recognizing this principle, as it is difficult for non-believers to grasp this concept, especially in terms of practical belief, rather than mere verbal acknowledgment or written statements.

The importance of this issue becomes evident when an Infallible asks for something that the believer possesses, particularly when that possession is something the believer feels a need for. In such a case, only a true believer would willingly offer it, as someone who lacks faith, or whose faith is weak, would develop enmity towards the Infallible. Such a person sees their possessions as entirely their own and does not recognize the Infallible’s right over them, viewing the Infallible as a trespasser.

This understanding can explain the narrations that state some individuals, when they die, do so in disbelief, finding themselves in enmity with God. These individuals see God as a usurper of their life, believing that their existence belongs to them, and that God has unjustly taken it away from them.

The significance of this issue is so great that, at all times and in all situations, every individual must seek refuge in God’s mercy and in the intercession of the Infallibles. Without God’s divine grace and their attention, salvation and deliverance, especially at the time of death, are impossible. Any narrative suggesting otherwise is a sign of ignorance.

The Hadith of Ghadir and the Precedence of the Prophet and Imam Ali

A well-known narration from the event of Ghadir Khumm establishes the supreme precedence of both the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Imam Ali (peace be upon him). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) famously proclaimed:

“Am I not closer to you than your own selves?”
The people acknowledged this statement, and immediately afterward, the Prophet affirmed the same precedence for Imam Ali (peace be upon him). This precedence extends to all matters, including the management of affairs and possessions, a principle that applies equally to all the Infallibles and Imams.

In a different narration, Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) was asked if the Imam pays zakat like other people. He replied:
“The Imam does not pass a single night without having a duty that must be fulfilled.” He further explained:
“Do you not know that the world and the hereafter belong to the Imam? He can distribute them as he wishes, giving them to whomever he pleases, and this authority is from Allah.”

In another narration, Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) emphasized that the world and everything in it belong to God, His Messenger, and the Infallibles.

These narrations make it abundantly clear that the legislative ownership of the world and all that it contains, both in this life and the hereafter, belongs to the Infallible Ones. Everything is part of their divine bounty, and all creatures are guests at their table of mercy.

Chapter: The Necessity of Paying Khums (Islamic Tax) and Its Legislative Framework in the Absence of the Imam

The government of justice entails that any management or use of fay (spoils of war) or anfal (properties that belong to the Imam) must be carried out with the explicit permission of the Imam (peace be upon him) or his specific representatives.

Moreover, a report from Al-Awali al-Lu’ali records that Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) was asked about the situation of the Shi’ah regarding what Allah has specifically entrusted to them during the occultation of the Imam (the Hidden Imam). The Imam, after a brief explanation, replied: “We permit them the use of residences so that their worship may be correct, we permit them the use of marriages so that their offspring may be pure, and we permit them the use of trade so that their wealth may be purified.”

There are several key points in this narration:

1. The narration does not concern khums but rather pertains to anfal—the Imam’s personal property. Specifically, makan (residences) refers to the lands of anfal, which belong to the Imam and are transferred to the Shi’ah when unjust rulers and caliphs seize them. Therefore, ownership and usage of these lands is lawful for the Shi’ah.
2. The question posed refers to the time of occultation, not the period of the Imam’s presence.
3. The reason for this permissibility is tied to the realization of a legitimate objective, and therefore does not imply a permanent or absolute permissibility, as the akhbariyyah (traditionalist scholars) claim. This narration, despite confirming the permissibility of usage during the time of occultation, does not imply that this permissibility applies universally and indefinitely, especially given that current conditions do not necessitate such permissions. In fact, paying khums today resolves many social and religious issues.

Additionally, a document written by the Imam al-Zaman (the Hidden Imam) is often cited, in which it is stated: “As for those who consume our wealth, whoever considers something of it lawful and consumes it, he will be eating fire. As for khums, it has been made permissible for our Shi’ah and remains permissible for them until our command appears, so that their progeny may remain pure and not contaminated.”

Several conclusions can be drawn from this statement:

1. The prohibition on consuming the wealth of the Ahl al-Bayt (family of the Prophet) is not limited to khums, but extends to all types of wealth that belong to them.
2. The phrase “whoever considers something lawful from it” implies that the consumption of the Ahl al-Bayt’s wealth is severely condemned only for those who deny the obligation of khums and commit injustice, while those who neglect it without animosity will not face the same severity, although the obligation of khums still stands.
3. The phrase “they are eating fire” indicates the intense punishment that awaits those who consume haram (forbidden) wealth, specifically that of the Ahl al-Bayt.
4. The mention of khums in this statement does not imply a general permissibility for all wealth, but rather specifically relates to khums.
5. The duration of the permissibility, “until our command appears,” suggests that the permissibility is not permanent but is conditional upon the Imam’s return.
6. The reason for this permissibility is to ensure the purity of the Shi’ah’s offspring, implying that there was an external obstacle to paying khums during the occultation.

While this document provides an apparent justification for the permissibility of khums during the occultation, it does not make this permissibility permanent or unconditional. The reason for this conditional ruling stems from the obstacles present at the time, such as the oppressive rulers who prevented the Shi’ah from fulfilling their obligations. Once the conditions change, such as the reappearance of the Imam or the cessation of obstacles, the obligation to pay khums reverts to its original form.

The second criticism of this narration is that its authenticity is questioned, as the document lacks a reliable chain of transmission. In fact, many narrations related to khums are weak in terms of their transmission and content. Thus, even if these narrations are accepted as authentic, they do not provide a conclusive proof for the permanent permissibility of khums for the Shi’ah.

The Arguments for the Obligation of Khums in the Occultation

Aside from the criticisms regarding the authenticity and interpretation of narrations permitting khums, there are numerous powerful arguments supporting its continued obligation, even during the occultation. The following are some of the key arguments:

1. The Quran: The Holy Qur’an establishes the obligation of khums as a permanent and unchanging law, with no indication of its suspension during the occultation. The relevant verses affirm that khums is one of the fundamental duties of the Muslim community.
2. Narrations: Numerous hadiths from the Ahl al-Bayt clearly affirm the obligation of khums and the severe consequences of neglecting it. These narrations emphasize that failure to fulfill the obligation of khums results in severe spiritual consequences.
3. The Practice of the Imams: The consistent practice of the Imams (peace be upon them) during their lifetimes, as well as their unbroken endorsement of khums through their representatives, further solidifies the continuity of this obligation. There is no indication that any of the Imams ever permitted the neglect of khums or provided an exemption from it.
4. The Role of Khums: Khums serves as a critical financial support for the needs of the Imam and his family, as well as for the welfare of the Shi’ah community, especially the descendants of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). This support is especially crucial during the occultation, when the financial needs of the Imams and their followers are heightened due to external oppression.
5. Philosophical Necessity: The existence of khums in Islamic law serves to maintain the socio-economic and spiritual well-being of the Muslim community. The Shi’ah, especially the descendants of the Prophet, are not permitted to take from the Zakat (obligatory alms), and thus khums ensures that their needs are met, preserving the integrity and continuity of the leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt.

In conclusion, while some narrations suggest a temporary suspension of khums under specific conditions, the overall body of evidence supports the ongoing obligation of paying khums throughout the time of occultation, which serves as an essential pillar of the Shi’ah’s religious and social duties.

The Necessity for Self-Sufficiency in the Religious Institutions

While the religious institutions and seminaries should certainly maintain their focus on the lawful collection of khums and other religious funds, they should not be entirely dependent on these sources for their financial sustainability. Instead, religious scholars and institutions should aim to become self-sufficient, following the example of past scholars like Sheikh Baha’i, who used his expertise to generate wealth through scientific knowledge and technological advancements. By expanding into fields of knowledge that are of global value, religious institutions can contribute to global knowledge production and ensure that their financial needs are met through diversified sources.

Sources of Knowledge Production

The seminaries possess the best resources for knowledge production. Both in the Holy Qur’an and in Hadiths, there are innovative scientific projects that seminaries can utilize, ensuring they are not merely consumers of knowledge. The center should not consume the wealth of Imam al-Zamana (may Allah hasten his reappearance), which is intended for orphans; rather, through the production of knowledge and its sale, it should prevent the perception of being a costly and consumptive center, so that it is not said that seminaries only have hands that ask. The seminary must extract plans related to psychology, mysticism, philosophy, experimental science, arts, and numerous other fields from books and traditions. By refining, processing, and purifying these, they can dominate the market for such knowledge. This way, they can prevent students from being burdened with excessive loans or being forced to seek money from various sources. A child who witnesses their father going to great lengths to obtain a small amount of money, waiting in long lines and reaching out with empty hands in humiliation, will struggle to form a connection with the seminary. Even if their father is an esteemed scholar, it will not satisfy the child’s needs.

Financial Independence of Religious Scholars: A Guarantee for the Survival of the Shia School

The position of Islam can be clearly understood through a brief comparison with other divine or human schools. Similarly, a quick comparison between the different Islamic sects and Shia Islam reveals that the worldview of Islam is most authentically represented in Shia Islam. Islam is a religion that justifies the world in relation to human beings, and this explanation is uniquely realized in the Shia approach, specifically the path of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). It is only the method of the infallibles that can claim to govern the world and its system because it alone depicts all the social and governmental aspects in the expansive world, relying on God and the people, without needing to resort to tyranny.

Various dimensions of society, and indeed the world, must be explored through Shia thought and the Qur’an, with Islamic economics and the formation of a unified system to address society’s needs playing a crucial role in this worldview.

Khums, as a part of Islamic economic law, plays an important role in this context and requires detailed study and research.

The survival of Shia and its scholars over more than a thousand years, despite numerous internal and external attacks, religious and non-religious, has been possible only through this political and economic method unique to Shia. Without relying on colonial powers or exploitation, Shia has endured, and its intellectual and spiritual heritage has continued to thrive.

Financial independence, supported by a dynamic and productive economic foundation, is the primary reason for the continuing vitality of Shia communities and scholars.

The Necessity of Halal and Pure Sources of Income for Scholars

While Khums is associated with the Imam of the time (may Allah hasten his reappearance), this connection alone does not make Khums money pure. Shia Muslims must be educated to pay their Khums from lawful and pure earnings. Any income that is not confirmed to be halal should not be designated as Khums. Money tainted by unlawful sources, or uncertain earnings, should not be used for Khums purposes. It is essential for scholars to be provided with pure, lawful income so they can freely fulfill their religious duties.

Challenges Faced by Scholars in the Present Day

Currently, seminarians in Qom, especially those who rely solely on their stipends without other means of support, face severe economic hardship. Many are forced to abandon their studies and seek employment in government offices or private companies, while others leave the seminaries entirely. Some, though dressed as clerics, end up engaging in activities unworthy of scholars, such as trading, construction, or farming. The situation is a painful reflection of the lack of financial support within the seminary system, where the scholars’ time and potential are often wasted in other professions.

The Impact of Financial Struggles on Academic Efforts

Many of the brightest minds, the most capable scholars, are lured away from their academic pursuits by the promise of better financial stability in external institutions. These young scholars, whose potential could have contributed greatly to Islamic knowledge and thought, are systematically drawn away from their intellectual endeavors to engage in administrative roles, further weakening the seminary’s capacity to produce new ideas and insights.

In the past, during the early years of the Islamic Revolution, it was deemed necessary for seminarians to support the executive and administrative efforts of the new government. However, over time, this shift should have been reconsidered. The key issue lies in the poverty and lack of sufficient financial support for students within the seminaries, forcing them to abandon their true calling for practical work elsewhere. Many young students, disillusioned by the economic challenges they face, find themselves diverted from their educational goals.

Concluding Remarks on the Importance of Economic Independence for Scholars

It is vital for religious scholars to receive income that is pure and halal to maintain their dignity and intellectual freedom. Income that is tainted or derived from unlawful sources leads to spiritual and intellectual decay, while lawful and pure income nurtures the soul and allows scholars to focus on their true academic and spiritual responsibilities. Therefore, attention must be paid to providing seminarians with proper financial support so they can dedicate themselves fully to their scholarly pursuits, without the distraction of external financial pressures.

Probable Causes of Financial Instability in Seminaries

Anyone who is a seminary student and relies solely on their stipend will testify to how deeply financial issues permeate their life, affecting both their body and spirit. They will acknowledge that the financial system of the seminary is fragile and deeply lacking in capability. However, the question arises: why, despite the fact that the Shiite seminary has millions of followers worldwide, is it unable to support the salaries of its thousands of students? This is a question whose answer is clear to some prominent scholars but remains obscure to many others. Is the source of this enormous problem—considering the substantial income generated from the donations of millions of followers—outside the seminary? In other words, do the faithful and the Shiites not pay their religious dues?

The Shiite community, with its deep religious devotion, is sensitive about paying alms like Khums and Zakat. They keep an eye on their religious obligations, ensuring that large sums are directed to those responsible for religious guidance in the seminaries. Thus, one must ask: Is it the fault of those in charge, who lack the ability to manage these funds, or are they insufficiently discerning in how these funds are distributed? Alternatively, is the problem not with the distribution of religious funds but rather with the students themselves—who lack life skills, are uninformed about economics, have fallen prey to greed and materialism, and lack the virtues of contentment?

It seems none of these explanations fully capture the situation; the real issue lies in the management of these funds. Only a small fraction of students misappropriate their stipends, and this misuse can largely be attributed to the distribution model itself. One significant flaw is the allocation of a portion of the donations to intermediaries who collect or represent the funds, exacerbating the situation.

If one claims that the problem lies with the people’s failure to pay their religious dues—that is, the shortage of income for the seminaries—this would be inaccurate. The majority of the Shiite faithful are committed to paying their religious dues. A considerable portion of the funds reaches the seminaries. A closer look at the wealth of top clerics who enjoy popular support reveals that vast sums of money flow into the seminaries. When a scholar can build a residential complex to house seminarians or run a multi-billion-dollar institution, yet the stipends of students remain below the poverty line, this raises a significant question: Why is this the case?

The important point here is the allocation of funds. While many religious figures have the means to establish large-scale charitable institutions, the money that enters the seminary system is often not fully utilized for the benefit of students. The funds collected for religious purposes, whether in the form of Khums, Zakat, or other donations, are sometimes diverted towards the creation of luxurious facilities or the enhancement of the status of certain figures, rather than being used to support the academic and financial needs of students.

This situation has become a significant concern within the seminaries. Although many high-ranking clerics are supported by vast amounts of wealth from their followers, they have not been able to translate these resources into tangible benefits for the students. Students, who are expected to dedicate themselves to their studies and religious duties, often face financial hardships that make it difficult to focus on their work. Many are forced to take on side jobs, which detracts from their ability to engage fully in their religious education.

Moreover, the gap between the wealthy clergy and the struggling students continues to grow. While some scholars live in luxury, enjoying access to high-end residences, private institutions, and international travel, their students live in modest, sometimes substandard conditions. This disparity is not only an issue of material comfort but also one of moral and ethical concern. It raises questions about the priorities within the seminary system and the broader religious community: Are the needs of the students, who are the future of the seminary, being neglected in favour of building personal wealth or enhancing prestige?

This situation calls for a reevaluation of how funds are managed within the seminary system. There is a need for greater transparency in the allocation and distribution of donations. The focus should be shifted towards supporting the students directly, ensuring that they have the resources they need to focus on their studies without the constant worry of financial instability.

The issue of funding within the religious education system is a multifaceted one. On the one hand, large amounts of money are generated through various religious contributions, such as Khums and Zakat, which are meant to support the educational and social needs of the community. However, in practice, much of this wealth is not being used to address the most pressing needs within the system, particularly the welfare of students. This inefficiency not only undermines the potential of students but also creates a sense of disillusionment among them. The lack of adequate financial support discourages students from dedicating themselves fully to their studies, which in turn affects the quality of education provided by the seminary.

Furthermore, the growing concentration of wealth among a select group of religious figures contributes to a widening divide between the leaders and the students. Many of these wealthy clerics enjoy a privileged lifestyle, complete with luxurious homes, expensive cars, and overseas trips, while the majority of students continue to struggle to make ends meet. This disparity is not only an economic issue but also one of social justice. It is difficult to reconcile the notion of religious leadership with the extravagance and opulence that some high-ranking clerics enjoy, especially when the students, who are meant to be the future leaders, are left in a state of financial hardship.

In light of this, it is clear that reforms are needed within the seminary system to ensure that the resources available are used effectively and equitably. The current system of wealth distribution needs to be revisited to ensure that it serves the needs of students rather than reinforcing the status quo of wealth and privilege. A more transparent and accountable system of financial management is essential to guarantee that the funds collected for religious purposes are directed towards improving the educational and living conditions of students. Only then can the seminary system fulfil its true potential and contribute meaningfully to the intellectual and spiritual development of the community.

(117)

They did not want to lose the opportunity. A few years ago, when it was decided to create a joint office to distribute the stipends to the seminary students in a unified way, they strongly opposed it. Some of them even said that they were willing to deliver the stipends to the students at their doorsteps but were opposed to creating a bank or a joint office for this purpose. Their opposition is similar to the resistance of workers in England to the industrialization of the car factory, as many workers would lose their jobs with the factory’s industrialization.

This group, which consists of clergy, lacks significant education and organizes their world around clerical tasks—some of which have been mentioned. Clerics who do not understand the meaning of contentment and always seek the highest level of comfort. Currently, the best life and the highest standard of living are in the hands of this limited group. Despite their small numbers, they have accumulated such wealth that if it were collected and distributed among the many suffering students in the seminaries, it would solve their problems and provide them with a decent standard of living. However, this wealth does not belong to these clergy, and it is not theirs to own. There will come a day when someone should take these resources and distribute them to the rightful recipients.

Such clergy, because they lack proper education, fail at various tasks. Thus, they always deceive the public to earn some money. One of their most effective ways of earning a living is by distributing stipends or collecting religious alms. Of course, this does not mean that everyone working in stipend offices is a cleric with such intentions, but some of the problems related to religious alms in the seminaries stem from this clerical group. For organizing the stipend system, no concessions should be made to such individuals, and they should be completely ignored. The best approach is to cut off the greedy hands of such individuals once and for all.

(118)

False Houshouri Occupations

The way stipends are currently distributed has created false jobs for some people. This is while the primary duty of scholars should be the production of religious knowledge, not stipend distribution. Both a student who has just entered the seminary and a scholar who has reached the level of advanced studies should focus on completing their education, dedicating at least five days a month to their academic work. Stipends can be delivered to students either through a joint office or an agreement with a bank—without the need for such extensive bureaucracy. Furthermore, more of the stipend distributors’ lives are wasted in long lines than those of the students themselves, and this time is lost. It is the seminary that suffers from this waste of valuable time, time that could be used to organize the best religious books. One of the biggest obstacles to organizing this project is precisely these stipend distributors, who would lose their occupation, and the door to their clerical income would be closed.

A religious and popular power must have the capability and strength to eliminate such false jobs and propose a stipend system that guides students toward learning, not toward standing in long lines. Of course, this may cause some individuals to lose their jobs in the process, but these setbacks should not be feared. Instead, one must look to the future of the seminary and move towards it.

The main job and profession of any seminary student should be studying and producing knowledge, and they should never be forced into administrative roles or jobs that, considering their original purpose, are deemed false. Religious scholars should not be tasked with stipend distribution. A computer system or an ATM is far more efficient and accurate than a religious scholar at distributing stipends, but what a computer cannot do is the production of knowledge and intellectual deliberation, and this is the essential task that should be expected from seminary personnel.

(119)

There are many religious, specialized, and caring individuals in society who can take responsibility for many administrative tasks in the seminary. There are also people who can lead congregational prayers in rural areas, serve as mediators in resolving people’s disputes, or encourage people to engage in good deeds. These tasks should not be considered as the primary responsibility of a religious scholar. It is unnecessary to allocate resources to move a scholar to a distant village under a project known as “Hijrat,” especially when it is unclear whether the local people will welcome them. It seems more plausible that when the villagers compare the income of the scholar with their own, they will develop a spirit of disdain or distance from the scholar.

Misunderstanding Knowledge Acquisition for Executive Ability

A significant issue related to religious alms, in line with the discussion about imitation (taqlid), is the idea that religious alms and the share of Imam (A.S.) should be managed by a religious scholar and under their guidance. Therefore, religious alms should always be deposited into the accounts of religious scholars.

We disagree with this opinion, and we hold a different view: religious alms have rightful owners, and they should be distributed to those entitled to them. The share of the Sayyids is clearly identified, and it is understood that it should be given to the needy Sayyids. The share of the Imam (A.S.) during the occultation also has specific uses that require awareness of the relevant rules, but what is more important is identifying the rightful recipients. It is not necessary to say that “alms should go through the hands of a religious scholar because they are more aware of how it should be spent,” because a scholar may know the rules and details of how to spend the alms but not the individuals who should receive them. Local people are better able to identify the deserving recipients in their region, as they are familiar with the local needs and circumstances.

If all religious alms are funneled toward one scholar, the scholar cannot properly distribute this vast amount of funds to those in need, as they are not familiar with all the needy or deserving individuals in cities and villages. So far, no scholar has been able to address this problem fully. As a result, the funds end up unused and concentrated in one place, while the rightful recipients suffer.

(120)

In this context, it should be emphasized that religious scholars are more knowledgeable about the “rules of spending” but not necessarily about the “recipients” of those funds. Thus, their role is to provide the guidance on how funds should be spent, but not to handle every practical detail of distribution.

At the end of the day, we assert that it is a religious duty to ensure alms are distributed to the deserving individuals, and this process should not be tied solely to the actions of religious scholars.

… expect from religious scholars is guidance based on pure knowledge and sincere intentions. The people must feel that religious scholars are genuinely working for the betterment of society and are leading by example. The moment they perceive deceit and selfishness among the scholars, the trust is broken.

The role of scholars should be solely focused on the development of religious knowledge, intellectual guidance, and leadership. Managing financial funds, distributing loans, and leading communal prayers in rural areas should not fall under the responsibility of the scholars, but rather be handled by the local community members. These tasks, which are important yet not central to the core mission of a religious scholar, should be left to those who can manage them effectively without taking away from the scholar’s primary duties of intellectual and spiritual leadership.

One of the most important aspects of the community’s involvement is that they should shoulder the responsibility of sustaining the scholars’ livelihood, but only when they genuinely witness the impact of these scholars’ work. When the community feels that their spiritual leaders are dedicated, sincere, and selfless, they will not hesitate to provide the necessary support for their scholars’ material needs.

However, the matter of religious scholars’ financial support requires further clarification. It is important to note that there should be no room for personal profit or gain through religious positions. Scholars must avoid situations where their knowledge or spiritual standing becomes a means of personal enrichment. The role of a scholar is not to engage in trade or commerce, as this distracts from their true purpose. If a scholar’s living is dependent on community contributions, these must be handled with the utmost honesty, transparency, and fairness.

The community must be involved in ensuring that resources are managed ethically, and that no one uses religion as a tool for personal gain. Corruption in religious leadership leads to mistrust and disunity among the people. As the trust between the scholar and the community is the foundation of religious life, any dishonesty or mismanagement of resources is detrimental to the growth and well-being of the entire community.

Therefore, it is essential to develop mechanisms of accountability and oversight to ensure that the funds entrusted to religious leaders are used solely for the purposes of education, spiritual growth, and the betterment of society. Religious institutions should be transparent, open, and responsive to the needs of the community they serve. The spiritual welfare of the people should always come before any material concern.

Jurisprudence, the ability to exercise ijtihad (independent reasoning), and the extraction of religious rulings form the foundation of religious scholarship. Religious jurisprudence has two main pillars: first, ijtihad, and second, justice. The relationship between these roles and the people is manifested in fatwas (legal rulings) and religious knowledge. The production of religious knowledge should not be limited to religious rulings and jurisprudence; the scholarly authority in other Islamic sciences, such as mysticism, philosophy, interpretation (tafsir), and hadith, also holds this status and is part of ijtihad and jurisprudence. The social roles of the clergy are ordered and interrelated, with one leading to the other. All of these roles stem from ijtihad and justice, or in other words, from jurisprudence or the ability to produce religious knowledge.

The place of the clergy in the production of religious knowledge and their expertise, and the fact that they have historically been at the forefront in all fields of knowledge—organizing the culture, law, and literature of the country—represents one of the advantages of this community. With ijtihad and justice, the clergy inherit the position of the divine prophets, peace be upon them. The intermediary link between the clergy and the sacred law (shari’ah) is “specialization and ijtihad,” which, combined with “justice,” establishes trust and paves the way for their acceptance by the people. It is this ijtihad and justice that make the clergy trustworthy in religious matters. Thus, if one of the two pillars—specialization or justice—is broken, the clergy’s religious trustworthiness falls apart, and they become irrelevant, with no one paying them any attention. We hope that no one will criticize us for this phrase, used due to the importance of the issue, as we are talking about those who claim to be the representatives of the infallible figures and the perfect saints in the age of occultation. This title is so significant that any minor lapse makes them an odious figure, and unless there is a separation from the clergy and the loss of their religious affiliation, it will lead to alienation from scholars and hostility toward religion.

When the clergy’s ijtihad and ability to theorize and produce knowledge and justice are presented to the people, it shapes their trust in them. Trust from the people grants social influence and authority. Therefore, the clergy’s entry point into society is their ability to issue fatwas and engage in scientific theorization. A society will be inclined towards the clergy only if they consistently focus on the foundational pillar of this institution: the production of knowledge and theory. If the clergy cannot maintain and secure a leading role in human and Islamic sciences and respond to the scientific needs of these areas, their social influence and popularity will fade, and their standing will decline.

The survival and popularity of the clergy depend on producing scientific theories and, in a word, ijtihad—although ijtihad should not be confined to the commonly used legal sense but should also include jurisprudence in all branches of human sciences. This ijtihad must also be based on justice, sanctity, and spirituality, so that the resulting knowledge is considered religious and valid.

The most important scientific center today is the Qom seminary, and this seminary is crucial for preserving the faith, much like the “Battle of Uhud” in Islamic history, where its scholars serve as protectors of the faith. If a scholar from this seminary were to leave for any reason and abandon it, it would be akin to abandoning the Battle of Uhud during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and it would be just as dangerous for the faith. However, this guardianship is the responsibility of those scholars who come from religious families, have great potential, and have not been negligent in their education. For seminary scholars, there is no work more important in the world than seeking knowledge, learning, and developing the power to produce religious knowledge. This ijtihad and the ability to produce religious knowledge are what can make each cleric a fortress to defend the faith in this turbulent world. With their specialization in producing knowledge, they can defend the Shi’a identity and the culture of Ali against adversaries. Therefore, any emigration of such scholars is like dropping their sword in the face of a fully armed and bloodthirsty enemy. These scholars are the main pillars of religious devotion during the age of occultation, and their absence would be equivalent to the collapse of a part of the structure of faith. These scholars are, like mountains, the protectors and supporters of Shi’ites and the orphans of the Prophet’s family during the age of occultation. Despite any economic difficulties they may face, they should never be authorized to leave the Qom seminary. The burden of the hardships they endure falls on those who can organize the funds and economic resources for the seminaries, but they do not exert the necessary effort.

Populism and Securing the Financial Independence of Mujtahids and Seminary Students

In order for a mujtahid to have freedom of expression and action, they must be free from any kind of dependency, including financial dependency, because there is a direct relationship between the ideas of groups and their financial and material matters. By examining their financial dependencies, one can infer the type of thought they may hold. It is not possible for a group to oppose the entities that provide their financial support, whether these entities are individuals, organizations, or governmental bodies. It is also true for religious groups, including Islamic clergy. For example, the Sunni clergy, who are financially supported by the government, inevitably adopt a pro-government stance and cannot issue a fatwa that goes against the interests of the government and in favor of the people. In contrast, the Shi’a clergy, whose sustenance comes from the people, think in a manner that reflects the interests of the public. If seminaries were to become government-funded, they would fall into the same trap and, like the Sunni clergy, would begin to defend the political system and the government rather than remain focused on the interests of the people. Despite this, the intellectual tradition of Shi’ism does not necessarily require this outcome, and a significant portion of the clergy would likely continue to be people-centered.

The Shi’a clergy are the only intellectual and scholarly group worldwide that have a popular, people-centered economic model. If this model were to change and become entirely government-dependent, it would constitute a global disaster, even though this outcome seems unlikely. However, the partial shift of this model is not entirely impossible and would carry with it the potential for significant problems. The key indicator of whether these groups are serving the interests of the people lies in their independence. If their people-centered nature is taken away, they would be a liability, even if their economic situation temporarily improves while they align themselves with the government. However, this would only continue as long as they remain aligned with the government, and the government recognizes their people-centered base and fears their influence.

The clergy can only be beneficial to the people if they remain with them and do not shift their focus toward their own personal interests or the interests of the state. If they do this, they will lose their people-centered base and become merely pawns of the government. This is only true, however, if the clergy make significant strides in advancing their academic and scientific goals. Mere quantitative growth without real intellectual advancement would be meaningless and would undermine their true value.

An excessive number of clerics without a focus on academic depth would cause people to see them not as intellectual figures but as mere service providers for specific tasks. It is unrealistic to expect every cleric to become a renowned intellectual figure, but it is reasonable to expect most of them to be well-equipped with modern knowledge. Otherwise, as the general population becomes more academically advanced, the gap between intellectuals and the clergy will widen, creating numerous challenges and harms for the faith.

The Need for the Elimination of Advertising Income

Religious scholars, like the prophets, should not accept money from the people for their services. Rather, those in charge of seminaries should have enough authority to provide a budget for those who go out to preach and allow them to help the poor and vulnerable in the regions where they are preaching. If a seminary student does not have financial independence and constantly faces poverty, it weakens their sense of self-worth and limits their ability to perform their duties. The old saying goes, “A servant without pay is the crown of their master,” but seminary students who face financial hardships cannot avoid preaching or remain financially disengaged, and this weakens their ability to live a life in accordance with the example of the divine prophets. Instead of receiving money from the people, a seminary student should carry funds to support the poor in the area where they are preaching, as one-fifth of their surplus wealth should be allocated for this purpose. The current practice of accepting money for preaching diminishes the preacher’s freedom and respect, and no one will listen to the sermons of such individuals.

Religious scholars should remain people-centered and always act in a spirit of love and generosity, just as the prophets did, without expecting any special favors in return. Clerics who are distant from compassion, who become easily angry, and who treat people with hostility should not claim to be heirs of the prophets; rather, they should define their place in society. If religious scholars are truly heirs of the prophets, they should be willing to sacrifice everything for the people, just as Prophet Lot and Prophet Noah did. The work of the prophets is not accomplished with “two hands grasping for power”—that is, using both to accumulate personal gain. If religious scholars are not prepared to make such sacrifices, then what is their role, and what are they wearing those garments for?

The position of a religious scholar today should not be the same as that of professionals in other fields who charge money for their services. A cleric should not sell what they have learned because, in doing so, they create a religious crisis for the people. Of course, this discussion differs from the systematic sale of knowledge to educational institutions, and it is important to distinguish between these two. Selling knowledge to academic institutions or industries supports the ability of the clergy to produce knowledge, but selling knowledge directly to the people turns it into a commodity that undermines the sanctity and purpose of religious learning.

The Proposal for Unified Management of Religious Funds

Although the resources of the seminary are limited, even the available resources are not used efficiently. We believe that with the existing religious funds, it is possible to overcome the challenges faced by students, but a capable force with unified management must oversee this process.

The Sword of Zulfiqar

The problems facing the seminary and the difficulties encountered in the production of religious knowledge are not solely about resolving issues like students’ stipends and housing. The true problem lies elsewhere and is not a matter of financial resources (since the seminary has considerable financial potential). The real issue is the lack of proper organization within the seminary and the failure of its leaders to invest in knowledge production, particularly in the production of religious knowledge, which has a distinct identity from other types of knowledge.

Have you ever wondered what would happen if Imam Ali (peace be upon him) were alive today and some allowed him to manage the seminary? How would he solve the issues of seminary students’ livelihood? We believe that if such a blessed event took place, Imam Ali would draw his Zulfiqar sword and wield it among the scholars and religious leaders, setting aside emotions. He would bring the same compassion and care to the seminary that he demonstrated for the public. He would handle the finances of the seminary with precision, ensuring that no excess or neglect would be tolerated. The root of corruption would be eliminated, and those involved would no longer dare to oppose him, creating a situation where “you would only hear a whisper.” He would begin with those at the top and demand accountability from them regarding the funds they receive. He would regard it as the right of the people, who provide these funds, to know how they are being spent. A single treasury and an auditing system would be established for all the seminary’s income.

However, today, there are many treasuries and offices within the seminary, and it is natural that embezzling from multiple sources is easier than from a single, accountable system with one responsible party, where no one can take money for themselves. The question remains: Can the Shi’a seminary, at least in Qom, which is considered the center of Shi’a scholarship, come together under one banner and create a unified and cohesive system? If a mujtahid considers themselves the most learned, shouldn’t they take the best possible action to resolve the financial difficulties faced by students and eliminate selfish clergy members? Like Imam Ali, they should remove all profit-seeking elements and centralize all funds into one treasury and one accounting system.

If a scholar is genuinely a scholar of truth and is committed to this right, like Imam Ali, they will fearlessly stand against anyone, even friends who deviate from the truth. They must maintain their commitment to the truth and act without fear, even if it means taking extreme actions against those who oppose it, regardless of the consequences.

Economic Problems of Seminarians and their Origins

The economic issues faced by seminarians stem from both the scholars who bear responsibility and from the jurisprudents who, though detached from management, hold positions of influence within religious institutions. The scholars who support them may either be unaware of the situation and, with pomp and noise, support such policies, or they may be unable to challenge their political allies, even in thought. The first group, which is politically inclined, is willing to steer everyone towards their objectives based on what they believe to be the correct political course. This group is small in number and has emerged within the political landscape after the revolution. Their politics are disorganised and, as they do not understand society, they are not in harmony with it; consequently, their political analyses are often flawed.

On the other hand, those who follow these groups and have neither become political nor economically engaged, fail to consider that their friends might be wrong. They attribute all mistakes to external factors and argue that the economic troubles of religious institutions are caused by the people, who supposedly fail to pay religious dues. These individuals are unable to even entertain the thought that, in order to assist the truth, they might need to reprimand their peers. Had the scholars united and created a unified system, the financial situation of religious institutions would have improved, and even the weaker members would have benefitted.

Establishing a Joint Bank for Religious Dues

Knowledge and awareness regarding the interpretation of religious matters and understanding the reasons and principles behind jurisprudential rulings is distinct from knowledge of the proper allocation of funds. A jurisprudent may be proficient in issuing rulings, yet be unaware or unable to manage how funds should be spent. Therefore, a jurisprudent, in addition to possessing complete jurisprudential expertise, must have a comprehensive understanding and the capability to effectively manage religious dues. If a jurisprudent is highly skilled in issuing fatwas but lacks the necessary knowledge or authority to allocate funds correctly, they cannot take control of religious dues.

Thus, simply being knowledgeable in religious law does not imply an understanding of social needs. Similarly, expertise in issuing fatwas or recognising public needs does not necessarily correlate with the ability to implement these correctly.

A jurisprudent who lacks social awareness or mismanages religious funds, or lacks the power to implement necessary decisions, loses their authority in guiding others. This is precisely why many contemporary problems related to religious dues stem from such issues.

If a financial institution were established specifically for managing religious dues, where all funds are deposited, this institution could assist religious scholars in the allocation of these funds. It could also structure the financial aspects of religious institutions based on its income reports.

This bank would determine its income based on the contributions made by followers of each religious authority and would allocate the funds according to their fatwas. Both the origin and destination of the funds could be tracked using unique identifiers.

While a religious scholar holds apparent authority, this does not mean that they should not be transparent in their dealings with the funds they receive. Religious dues must be organised with clear structures, and any form of disorder should be avoided. They should not deviate from the specific religious framework they belong to. Transparency in the income and expenditure of religious dues should be provided to the followers, with real-time updates available to the public online.

It should be noted that the authority of a religious scholar is contingent on their acceptance by the public, and if religious dues are not handled transparently, it can undermine the credibility of the clergy within society. Every religious scholar, therefore, has a responsibility both to the public and to the religious community and must be held accountable.

Those who collect religious dues—whether scholars or their representatives—must meet the necessary scholarly and ethical criteria and ensure the correct procedures are followed at all levels.

The Proper Use of Religious Dues

Religious dues must be spent in their designated areas, and any misuse should be avoided. Additionally, religious dues collected from a broader region or from around the world should be distributed accordingly and should not be restricted to one central area or specific regions.

Representatives who collect these dues may be granted a portion to distribute according to the scholar’s guidelines, but this must be done fairly and transparently. The role of representative should not become a job or profession, where some benefit disproportionately while others are excluded.

The scholar’s opinion should always be adhered to when it comes to the distribution of religious funds. However, if their opinion contradicts religious principles or their own fatwa, it becomes void, and the justice of the scholar may be compromised, causing the loss of their credibility as a religious authority.

Religious dues should be allocated justly, avoiding wastefulness, and it is crucial to focus on the needs of the poor. If there is a shortfall in the funds, it should be distributed equitably among the most deserving individuals.

Religious dues should never be used for personal or selfish purposes, nor should they be treated as personal wealth or a windfall.

The Importance of Academic Quality Over Quantity in Seminary Admissions

One of the current issues in religious institutions is the focus on quantity rather than quality in the admission of students. This policy leads to some members of the clergy lacking the necessary academic strength, resulting in high costs for religious institutions and often preventing resources from reaching those who work diligently within them. This situation arises when individuals without adequate training or testing are allowed to benefit, while those who invest their time and intellect in religious work do not receive the support they need.

The current admission policy in seminaries, which focuses on quantity rather than quality, ultimately harms the institution. It is more beneficial to admit a few highly capable students who can make a significant impact than to allow a larger number of students who may not be able to contribute meaningfully.

Religious institutions should focus on nurturing talented students. If governmental or private institutions require seminary graduates, then weaker students who lack academic strength but are good at practical work may be recruited, while academically gifted students should remain in the seminaries.

The Compatibility of a Seminary Student’s Character with Religious Principles

Being a seminarian requires a particular set of traits, which are necessary for endurance and strength in the struggle for the truth. This is what we refer to as “the seminary character.” Every individual does not possess this natural disposition, and those who express readiness for the seminary must first be tested on their character. The foundation of education in a religious institution should focus on nurturing these innate characteristics under the guidance of experienced mentors.

A person’s natural qualities determine whether they are suited for seminary life and whether they can contribute to the religious community. A person with the right traits becomes a capable and resilient fighter in the path of God.

For a seminarian, sincerity and justice are key traits. Currently, neither jurisprudence nor justice undergo formal evaluations. Justice, which is a fundamental principle of Shi’ism, must be tested, and seminarians should be trained based on both their academic expertise and their moral integrity. The testing for justice should be designed in practical and real-life scenarios, but it should never compromise freedom or create an environment of hypocrisy.

Conclusion: The Role of Seminary Education in Religious Reform

To truly reform both the governance and society, seminarians must possess a combination of academic and ethical capabilities. The process of seminary education should be rigorous and should aim to cultivate not just knowledge but also character. The true purpose of religious education is not only to prepare scholars but also to ensure that these scholars can lead and guide others based on a deep understanding of religious truths.

It belongs to God and is for His sake, not for oneself. The purity and love embedded in the path of seminary studies derive from this very concept of being “for the sake of God.” The seminary student is dedicated to God and associated with Him, the God from whom nothing but love and purity emanates. Seminary studies cannot be separated from this purity and love. We have discussed this purity in our book Fiqh of Purity and Joy.

The Necessity of Avoiding Meanness and Stinginess in Stipends

The seminary must, like the scholars of the past, be capable of invention and discovery. It must remain dynamic, progressive, and honorable through the production of knowledge, so that the seminarian does not have to degrade himself by seeking menial tasks to earn a living or feed his family, relying on money that is tainted by stinginess and is not wholesome. Paying meager stipends to seminarians, in addition to the drawbacks of such a payment method, contaminates the stipend with stinginess, and merely attributing it to the Imam of the Age (may God hasten his reappearance) does not make it pure or blessed. The Imam (peace be upon him), who is a figure of nobility and generosity, would never be content with handing such small amounts of money to anyone.

Therefore, the traditional stipend system, particularly when it involves long tables filled with students, must be considered a violation of proper norms. Our seminarians are the most oppressed class, who must endure considerable humiliation just to receive a few thousand tomans, sometimes requiring thousands of people to visit the seminary and crowd around several tables. Some even choose the middle of the month as the time to distribute a few tomans. Currently, such a stipend distribution must be viewed as a crime, with its consequences extending to the Day of Judgment. We must ask why a unified stipend system has not been established and accepted. No civil servant or janitor receives such treatment, with everyone else receiving their wages on time and with dignity, yet seminarians must spend several hours just to receive theirs.

The tables laid out at the seminary for stipend distribution disrupt the students’ studies. Can we, in such a situation, criticize a seminary student for lacking knowledge? Seminarians are truly oppressed. At times, I cry for them, saying, “O God, we are powerless.” These are the purest and most innocent people we have under the sky. The seminarians are the purest young men who are sent here by their parents with hopes and dreams. They must endure loneliness and the pain of separation, yet they persevere with their pure and sacred intentions to serve religion. However, some become disheartened after a few years, leading them to abandon their studies and either enter military service or turn to other forms of religious duties, such as preaching, leading congregational prayers, or even sitting under the sun at the seminary.

Separation of Stipends from the Examination System

There must be a clear distinction between academic study and stipends. A student’s duty is to focus on their studies, while the stipend is a right for their family. A seminary student’s spouse and children should not be penalized for their shortcomings in academic performance. The stipend should not be tied to academic exams, so that the student can focus mentally and intellectually on their studies under the guidance of an experienced teacher. In fact, scientific work must be required under the supervision of the teacher, not merely the results of an exam. How this system can be structured requires detailed design, but it is essential to remember that the stipend should not be tied to the student’s academic performance. The first step should be the proper selection and admission of seminarians.

Currently, seminarians’ stipends are tied to “exams,” especially oral exams, which lack a proper standard. The people conducting these exams, with the best of conditions, are unable to comprehend the difficulties faced by seminarians whose stipends are cut off for trivial reasons. These oral exams often fail to accurately assess a student’s knowledge and can result in students who lack sufficient understanding passing, while more diligent students, who dedicate their time to studying, may fail due to not satisfying the subjective preferences of examiners. We do not consider oral exams as a valid method for assessing seminarians, especially when such exams endanger their stipends and fail to properly measure their academic abilities. Exams are necessary, but they should be conducted by those who have the appropriate qualifications and understanding, not by individuals who are disconnected from the realities of a seminarian’s life.

The Stipend Should Not Be Tied to Academic Performance

A seminarian’s stipend should never be tied to their academic progress. The seminaries should provide at least basic resources for every student and expect them to focus on their studies. The seminary should educate scholars without focusing on financial incentives. Money should not be the driving force behind learning or teaching. When money is involved, it leads to corruption. Similarly, seminarians must maintain such dignity that they never look to others for handouts, even believing that someone offering them money may be trying to help them. Academic research and teaching must not be tied to money, so that religious scholars will dedicate their time and energy to producing knowledge, rather than focusing on the stipend they receive.

A person once offered to pay stipends on the condition that seminarians had completed a course of study in Makasib (a key religious text). One seminarian asked me, “Is it permissible to accept a stipend from him, even though I have not completed Makasib?” I told him there is no harm in it, as the person himself does not understand Makasib and has no right to impose such conditions. This stipend is the rightful property of the seminarian’s wife and children.

Organizing the Educational System with an Emphasis on Teachers

One of the primary problems in seminaries is “disorganization,” but this issue should be resolved through a teacher-centered approach, where the relationship between teacher and student is strengthened. Disorganization or lack of attendance should not be used as a pretext for cutting stipends. When seminarians are supported, they understand that their very breath belongs to their service. If this culture prevails, seminarians will never become lazy, indulge in excessive rest, or waste their time. They will always remain focused on their studies, understanding that their efforts are for the Imam of the Age (may God hasten his reappearance). Furthermore, when their material needs are sufficiently met, they will have no excuse for abandoning their scholarly endeavors.

Seminaries must also reform their admissions process, reducing the number of students admitted and focusing more on knowledge and piety. This will enable the Shi’a faith to better present itself globally, lighting the path for truth-seekers.

Marriage and Spiritual Support for Seminarians

Unfortunately, seminarians currently face many challenges when it comes to marriage. Not only can they not find suitable partners, but they also struggle to afford the costs. Furthermore, they lack spiritual support from the seminary authorities. Seminary leaders should view themselves as spiritual fathers to their seminarians, providing emotional and spiritual support to help them navigate marriage. With this support, seminarians would be able to seek marriage with confidence.

Today, the government helps students by organizing mass weddings and covering wedding costs. Should seminarians not receive similar support? Those who have migrated to study religious knowledge should also have their needs attended to.

Avoidance of Temporary Marriages

As heirs of the prophets, scholars should avoid engaging in worldly affairs, especially those that are unseemly, such as temporary marriages. While polygamy or temporary marriages may have been acceptable in the past, they are now a societal problem. In light of this, it is not advisable for religious scholars today to partake in such practices.

Providing Housing for Seminarians

One of the major problems seminarians face is finding housing. Many schools are overcrowded, even having multiple shifts. However, funds from khums, zakat, and other religious contributions are often spent on extravagant seminary buildings, which should be questioned in light of the pressing housing issues seminarians face.

Section 1: The Importance of Islamic Government and the Constitution

Iran’s type of government is of great importance, as it is where the constitution begins, namely, the Islamic government. This constitution was drafted by some of the jurists from the seminaries, based on their specific perspectives on the governance of society. These scholars extended their jurisprudential management approach to all of its principles. Similarly, the constitution during the constitutional era began with the National Assembly, which was considered the foundation of the “just monarchy” because, at that time, the establishment of the National Assembly was believed to secure their political rights, with the main problem of the country being the absence of a parliament. In the same manner, the Italian constitution starts with a principle based on work. The charter of the seminaries, too, must recognise the genealogy of the religious scholars as the fundamental pillar of the new structure of seminaries and their essence. The purpose of drafting the constitution of the seminary is to train individuals who, like the divine prophets (peace be upon them), will produce religious knowledge and divine deeds. The seminary’s constitution should aim to shape students into figures resembling the prophets and saints of God, cultivating scholarly individuals who are compassionate and serve as a refuge for the people, fostering sincerity, purity, and love among the masses.

Section 2: The Challenges of the Seminary Lifestyle

The Livelihood of Seminary Students

Religious scholars are the heirs of the prophets, and therefore, they bear a heavy responsibility, adhering to many aspects of life. A seminary student belongs to the lineage of divine prophets and is part of a world of purity and light. Therefore, while the appearance of a seminary student may be simple, it should not diminish their elegance.

A scholar must present themselves in a neat and clean manner, wearing beautiful clothes when they go out. The people of our society are very sensitive to the outward appearance of religious scholars. For example, if a scholar’s shirt has an oil stain, even if they deliver the most eloquent speech, with the highest words and even divine revelations, the presence of that stain will diminish the impact.

Avoidance of False Humility and Arrogance

A seminary student should neither suffer from false humility nor fall into arrogance. Both are detrimental and problematic for the individual. The balance, or the middle path, is to understand one’s place well and express it without exaggeration or weakness.

The seminary student’s lifestyle, like that of the poor and the prophets, is simple. A seminary student confines themselves to the minimum needs and avoids accumulation and pride. Contemporary comforts, which are a natural outcome of technological development, should not corrupt them. For instance, while mobile phones have become essential in today’s world, it should not be the case that the most expensive phones are in the hands of seminary students. The student should only use such technologies out of necessity and understand the ethics of their use.

The Natural Struggles and Deficiencies in Life

Religious scholars and seminary students should not expect that their worldly affairs will be flawless, free from any deficiencies. The nature of the material world is such that there will always be a flaw in one aspect of life or another. Shortcomings and deficiencies are inherent, and divine testing requires such challenges.

Every person must experience suffering for growth and development. Those who endure significant hardships can truly measure themselves and understand their inner being. It is in times of hardship that true wisdom is revealed, as opposed to times of comfort when anyone can appear wise.

Facing the Quantitative Challenges of Seminary Life

Quantitative problems are those that are trivial, time-consuming, and unimportant. On the other hand, qualitative problems are vast and severe, yet they do not manifest externally and affect only the person facing them. Qualitative problems are so overwhelming that they can destroy even the strongest individuals, and those who are weak in character may break under such pressures. Strong individuals, however, are unaffected by quantitative problems, though they may suffer from the time wasted on them. For example, challenges such as ignorance among the public or incorrect societal customs can occupy a great deal of time without posing significant challenges.

The Impact of Qualitative vs. Quantitative Problems

For instance, if a strong and knowledgeable individual is threatened with death, imprisonment, torture, or exile, these may potentially destroy a lesser person. However, the wise individual remains undisturbed, adjusts to the challenges, and continues their work. The weak, on the other hand, might crumble under such threats. The strong find their inner strength during such hardships, while the weak would falter.

Section 3: The Evolution of Life and the Seminary System

The Difference Between Contemporary and Historical Lifestyles

In the past, people, especially religious scholars, lived modestly, continuing their journey towards spiritual perfection with minimal resources. Today, achieving such a lifestyle is nearly impossible. The modern understanding of life has expanded beyond the simplicity of the past, with materialistic needs now taking precedence.

In earlier times, scholars faced numerous obstacles, such as travel difficulties, illness, lack of medical care, and even death. Today, these issues are less prevalent, yet new challenges have emerged, particularly related to the materialism and comforts of modern life, which have significantly impacted the motivation for intellectual and spiritual development.

The Current State of the Seminary System and its Decline

Despite the advances in science and technology worldwide, the religious seminaries seem to have stagnated, falling behind in comparison. If a scholar is honoured within the academic community, it is considered a rare event, and the world of science no longer sees the seminary teachings as contributing to the advancement of knowledge.

In the past, scholars could gain great knowledge in the most remote villages, whereas today, even the most prestigious academic institutions fail to produce scholars of significant value. Modern seminaries must engage in active research and development of knowledge, ensuring that they contribute meaningfully to the wider intellectual landscape.

The Failure of the Seminary System to Adapt

It is often the case that the system marginalises the true scholars in favour of those who appear as scholars but lack substance. These individuals manipulate their position, distracting from the real work and research, which leaves the genuine scholars sidelined.

In the seminary system, there is a dichotomy between true scholars and those who merely appear as scholars. The latter often thrive on public appearances, while the former are sidelined. Genuine scholars must endure the pressures placed upon them, while those with little to offer dominate the academic and social scenes.

A scholar, by neglecting worldly matters and due to the narrow environment created for him by the clerics, causes harm to his wife, children, and those around him, leading them to separate from him. His child does not become a good scholar, and his family has no affection for him. Despite considering their father a scholar, the children of such a scholar become estranged from him. On the other hand, a second group, through hypocrisy, showmanship, and the display of righteous deeds, cause even their wife and children to lose faith in their superficiality and break away from them. Even though they benefit from their wealth and exploit them to the best of their ability, they do not regard them as good people and, in some cases, may even oppose them, considering them to be a counter-value.

In order to address such issues, it is essential to define a clear system for seminaries, determine the true value of each scholar based on their actual abilities (rather than the grades achieved through last-minute cramming for exams, without truly understanding the content of a book), and, while utilizing talented, committed, and pious individuals, expose the impurities of the group without content. A sound and clear value system should be established for religious scholars, so that genuine scholars, alongside regaining their scientific status, can enjoy a balanced and appropriate life. The public should recognize their true worth, and the era of hypocrisy should come to an end. However, achieving this is not easy, and it has always been the case that the hypocrites dominate the people of truth. Just as Imam Ali (peace be upon him), despite his immense greatness, was forced into seclusion by them.

The Harm of Pseudo-Scholars

Unfortunately, some pseudo-scholars, traditionalists, and certain clerics who travel the streets, as well as many governments and rulers, have always pushed true and genuine scholars to the margins to serve their personal interests. God knows the tragedies and crimes that these groups, wielding power, tyranny, and force, have inflicted on religious scholars and on knowledge and truth.

Pseudo-scholars who have followed such policies have never held true scholarly value. They have merely lived off the knowledge of real scholars. Genuine scholars have worked hard and faced immense difficulties for their knowledge, while pseudo-scholars have only flaunted their supposed knowledge and spent their lives in plundering. From their intellects, only their outward appearances and superficiality remain. God knows what suffering true scholars have endured from these ignorant and tyrannical groups!

Governments, kings, and unjust rulers have always gathered such so-called scholars around themselves, supported them as their primary agents, and exploited them. In contrast, they have suppressed and marginalized real scholars, driving them into isolation or even eliminating them, silencing any opposition with force, deceit, wealth, and falsehood. Such pseudo-scholars, who only appear to be learned, should not be considered true scholars. Those who care for religion and have a genuine love for knowledge should completely distance themselves from these deceptive figures and avoid becoming associated with false scholars and royal sermonizers. Instead, they should familiarize themselves with knowledge through reasoning, evidence, and sound beliefs, dedicating their lives to research and enlightenment, striving to free knowledge from the clutches of such false and ignorant scholars.

Although this book’s subject is the economics of seminaries and the issue of religious scholars’ stipends, to better clarify this matter and the role played by the pseudo-clerics in presenting a financial and economic image of seminaries, it is necessary to provide further details about them towards the end of this book.

Classes of Clerics

As we mentioned, religious scholars can be categorized into two major groups at all levels, with the second group further subdivided. The first group consists of those who, due to their goodness or exceptional goodness, become misguided, and the second group consists of those who are bad or extremely bad, with a rational middle ground among them being rare.

The first group—those who appear bad due to their excessive goodness—spend their entire lives dedicated to study, research, teaching, discussions, asceticism, and solitude, showing indifference to all matters, even their personal life, wife, and children. As much as they prioritize their academic work, they remain indifferent to other aspects of life. Although this group comprises good people who rarely seek worldly gains and may possess virtues and knowledge, because they fail to fulfill their responsibilities toward their own affairs, especially concerning their wives and children, they cannot be considered reasonable, balanced, or responsible individuals. It is rare for such a scholar to fully fulfill his duties to his spouse and children. His wife and children are dissatisfied with him, they do not show proper development, and although they may have great potential, their current development is inadequate. This group was more prevalent among past scholars, and their problems were fewer. Today, this group is very small, and it is rare to find a scholar of this kind.

In the present time, the pursuit of the world, titles, and appearances has largely replaced the values of the past, and although the claim to these values still exists, such individuals rarely match their claims with reality.

The second group, which becomes evident from the description of the first, is significantly larger today than the first group and has grown even more compared to the past. These scholars, maintaining the status and ranks of worldly desires, are clear examples of those who are worldly. Many of them display superficial good deeds, and they maintain their external appearances using specific attire, such as long beards, cloaks, and fine clothes, masking their inner shortcomings. They progress in such a way that it seems nothing but a thin layer of outward appearance remains, which collapses upon their death. Their authority disappears, and no trace of them remains after death.

Some members of this group behave in a way that exposes their shortcomings and flaws more clearly. Although they may maintain a superficial appearance in public, within their families, they are different, and their actions and shortcomings become more evident to those close to them.

These so-called scholars, while not depriving themselves of worldly pleasures—unless unable to—allow materialistic desires to dominate them. They may keep up appearances to some extent, but their worldly desires and materialistic allurements control their thoughts, leaving little room for spiritual concerns. Their wives and children, although they benefit from them materially, do not develop any true faith in them, and it is not uncommon for them to oppose them and distance themselves. This opposition is often mental, and while they benefit from the material resources, they still grow increasingly distanced from their father.

Occasionally, some of these individuals progress so far in the pursuit of worldly matters that they become recognized by the general public as well. In such cases, the issue extends beyond the household, and they even surpass others in their wickedness, becoming leaders in evil. They lack true knowledge and do not engage in genuine intellectual or spiritual pursuits.

The third category of the second group consists of scholars who, when the general population is relatively pious and healthy, are not particularly knowledgeable, and they essentially follow the ordinary scholars, lacking independent thought. Most of their knowledge revolves around superficial matters, such as what is needed to manage their own lives and livelihoods. If there are any thinkers or scholars within their ranks, they belong to the first group and have failed to maintain the proper balance in their personal lives. It is rare to find someone from this group who succeeds in balancing scholarly effort, practical application, adherence to religious obligations, and proper manners. As the late Ayatollah Mirza Hashem Amoli (may God have mercy on him) famously said, “The miracle of Islam is that it is preserved by a bunch of fools and beggars; because our clerics—note that I am referring to the wandering clerics, not the esteemed students—are either fools, beggars, or both.”

By “fools,” he meant the distortions of clerics, and by “beggars,” he referred to those who depend on others for their livelihood. Although this statement may seem humorous, it is indeed very serious, and despite its apparent bitterness, it reflects a reality. While it may not apply universally, it holds a certain truth.

In our society of scholars, we have very few rational, moderate, and capable scholars who are pious and active. It is rare to find a scholar who excels in both knowledge and piety, and whose conduct is exemplary. This is because those who are devoid of virtue, hypocritical, and of poor character dominate the scholarly community.

This issue also affects their family life, and their wives and children struggle with their shortcomings. In the midst of these challenges, moderate and reasonable individuals are rare.

As a result, the children of these scholars rarely grow up to be scholars of virtue, and if they do, they are exceptional. Furthermore, it is rare for the children of scholars to be uninterested in worldly matters, and it is even rarer for their daughters to desire a scholarly life or for their sons to pursue this path.

This situation has caused the clergy to be a strong catalyst for the realization of their role, but without a lasting cause. The immediate cause is that religious people, due to their religious convictions, have a strong desire for their children to become scholars. Religious families often encourage their children to follow this path, and many of the great scholars come from humble, rural backgrounds. However, these fathers do not raise scientifically accomplished sons, and their children rarely follow in their footsteps. Instead, it is the children of hardworking rural families from various corners of the country who enter this path.

As a result, many scholars join the seminaries, but few reach high levels, and only a small number of their children follow in their footsteps. Seminaries must address this issue seriously, avoiding extremes and emphasizing rational thinking and human emotions, while ensuring the overall development and improvement of their systems.

In this way, the personal and family issues of religious scholars will be resolved, and they will become more committed to religion and Islamic ethics than the general public. Their families, wives, and children will also become more devout and dedicated to religious principles, with a focus on the eternal and the afterlife. Seminaries will be freed from their deficiencies and weaknesses and will not allow superficiality, materialism, and social status to overshadow their true purpose.

If this situation continues, the clergy and seminaries will be increasingly disregarded by society and the people. The seminaries will decay from within and reach a point where no remedy or corrective measure will be effective, and they will spiral into decline, bringing only moral insecurity, doctrinal weakness, and cultural disintegration to both the seminaries and society at large.

When the situation reaches the point where the primary concern of a scholar is to consider when it will be his turn to attain the title of “Ayatollah” and how many people he must wait behind to secure the position of religious leadership, while ignoring the possibility that he might pass away before the thirty-fifth person in line, and when a scholar takes comfort in having been the one to read the “Ijab” (proposal) during a marriage contract, or believes that his position is superior because his name was mentioned with reverence during a ceremony — these are empty thoughts and, at this point, we must bid farewell to the emergence of true knowledge and wisdom in such minds.

When scholars have such a mindset, it is clear why the children of scholars pursue worldly affairs, lack practical belief in religion, why the daughters of scholars marry only wealthy individuals, and why their sons are drawn to other pursuits.

In such a scenario, religion, spirituality, piety, and true faith lose their meaning and purpose in the original centers of knowledge, and their utility diminishes. In such an environment, it is unrealistic to expect the general public to have a deep understanding of religious principles. When there is no religious vitality within families who are supposed to be the bedrock of religious learning, how can we expect ordinary people to be practically engaged with religious principles? When the daughter of a scholar is not considered a suitable match for another scholar, how can we expect that an ordinary person’s daughter would be considered similarly? When a scholar’s wife is filled with worldly desires, what can we expect from the wives of common people? At this point, the situation becomes such that it is said: “We are scholars, not practitioners!”

The scholars seek knowledge, and the practitioners seek practice. In such an atmosphere, it is only natural that neither the scholar nor the practitioner remains true to their path. All that is left of religion is its form and appearance, and a general weakness in both knowledge and practice overtakes the public mood, leading scholars to seek worldly gain while worldly individuals pursue material wealth. The only thing that remains is a superficial form of religion, devoid of its true essence.

The Use of Rituals and Slogans in Place of Knowledge and Awareness

One of the harms caused by the dominance of lesser scholars is that rituals are used to deceive the public. Illiterate clerics, in order to cover their ignorance, use public ceremonies to mislead people. When prayers, mosques, Hussainiyas, and mourning ceremonies are in the hands of illiterate clerics, they serve only to deteriorate religious commitment within society, not to nurture it. With the rise of uneducated clerics, the main function of many rituals becomes the pursuit of worldly benefits, and they contribute significantly to the regression of society. This dominance is so extensive and unfounded that begging and asceticism take on the guise of spiritual guidance, and the scholarly and cultural classes have the least influence among the general population. The only thing that remains is the same outdated, weakened form of these rituals. This trend has led to a situation where begging is seen as more profitable than engineering, and an uneducated mourner, who excels only at evoking tears, garners more respect and popularity than a highly knowledgeable mujtahid, accumulating a far wealthier life.

The rituals, traditions, and national customs, while intrinsically significant, sometimes have the opposite effect and contribute to the degradation of culture and public thinking. An unscrupulous ruler may take charge of society without possessing any meaningful knowledge or managerial skills. With his lackeys, he could destroy every healthy initiative, suppressing any new or correct approaches, just as Reza Shah did.

The wealth spent on these symbolic acts could, if properly managed, alleviate many of the people’s problems and create healthy job opportunities. Clergy, who should embody the greatest intellectual development and serve as models of true scholarship, have deviated from their original purpose due to the rise of the “clerical” way of thinking. The only place where true knowledge still exists is in the hard-working and suppressed students, and even that is rare. Illiterate clerics, who claim to be supporters of the people, are often the weakest members of the clergy and, in many cases, bear little resemblance to true scholars. In time, even their outward appearances will fade, and they will become nothing more than ritualistic mourners devoid of any intellectual substance.

These individuals take on the task of guiding and leading the destitute, but in reality, they neither possess any knowledge nor do they offer valuable guidance. Instead, they cause harm with their misguided advice while amassing significant wealth, leading people into stagnation and retrogression. Some people blindly follow them, thinking they have been enlightened by their teachings, while others reject all forms of obedience and seek to distance themselves from the truth altogether.

Such conditions result in the decline of religious devotion, the erosion of spirituality, and the growing disillusionment with religious institutions. As religiously knowledgeable individuals grow scarce, religious observances become mere superficial rituals, and those who claim to have knowledge and are familiar with modern culture begin to distance themselves from religious life, eventually rejecting all forms of religious expression.

Divine Assistance to the Clergy

Although we have critiqued some aspects of the clerical community in this book, this does not mean that this community cannot overcome its current problems.

Currently, the clerical community—especially the aware and qualified clergy who have something meaningful to say—commands the greatest respect and reverence from the people. We firmly and unequivocally state that whether the Islamic system remains intact or not, the clerical community will endure. This is because it is rooted in the faith and beliefs of the people, who naturally hold this group in high regard. The public’s acceptance of them will never diminish, especially as long as the clerics are truly concerned with religion and dedicated to updating and presenting it in ways that are relevant to modern needs.

The clerical community has always shown remarkable astuteness in preserving and reviving the teachings of Shia Islam during times of crisis and challenges. Additionally, they are recipients of the divine support and aid of the Mahdi (may Allah hasten his reappearance), although this does not negate the possibility of temporary decline or setbacks due to weak management by certain clerics. However, this decline, caused by the poor leadership of certain influential scholars, does not equate to a complete collapse. The most enduring community among the people will always be the clergy, whether they are in direct control of governance or not, since every ruler needs their support to maintain legitimacy.

The clerical community, particularly during the time of Ayatollah Boroujerdi, held unparalleled religious authority. After his death, many believed the era of clerical leadership had ended, especially due to the propaganda of the Shah’s regime. However, the reality is that the clergy’s influence spans beyond national borders and remains deeply entrenched in the collective consciousness of the people.

The clergy possess a spiritual system that the modern world has yet to fully comprehend. This system is based on the natural, unseen guidance provided to them through the work of highly pious and righteous scholars. This hidden, esoteric system governs the community’s actions in a subtle, unobtrusive manner, without arousing any external sensitivities. The activities of these scholars, whose inner reality remains unseen, are part of a hidden system of spiritual leadership. The foundation of the clergy’s survival and success lies in this inner, pure structure, which remains unaffected by external changes or superficial factors.

The clerical community has a millennia-old presence in the hearts of the religiously-minded people, and no one can uproot this deeply embedded foundation. Unlike political regimes, which can be overthrown through a coup, the clergy’s position remains steadfast. Nevertheless, the clerical community today requires organised efforts to produce true religious knowledge and advanced jurisprudence.