The Path of Love (Volume 3)

The Path of Love (Volume 3)

(Blessed be his soul)
By: Ayatollah Mohammad-Reza Nekounam

Title: The Path of Love
Author: Mohammad-Reza Nekounam
Publisher: Sobh Farda, Islamshahr, 2018
Pages: 3 Volumes
ISBN:

• 978-600-397-083-0 (set)
• 978-600-397-085-4 (Volume 3)
  Subject:
• Nekounam, Mohammad-Reza, Diaries
• Clerics and Scholars, Iran, Diaries
  Dewey Decimal Classification: 998/297
  Library of Congress Classification: BP153.5.I7 N456 2018

Chapter 25: The Islamic Revolution
Supporting Imam Khomeini

May God have mercy on Imam Khomeini! We had a great love and affection for him, and from childhood, he held the same status for us as a father. We grew up and matured with him. Occasionally, we would find him and have the chance to meet. I remember once he had lost something, and to find it, he made a vow to pray two rak’ahs. He performed the prayer, and in the first rak’ah, he found what he was looking for. Upon finding it, he broke his prayer and said, “I found it.” We objected, saying, “Imam, why did you break the prayer? You should have completed it.” He replied, “I found what I was looking for, and the prayer is no longer necessary.” I did not object in the realm of love and affection I had for him, as I did not want to upset him. He was adamant in his position and did not accept my view. My life passed in connection and friendship with him.

I had many teachers, all of whom were good, but the status of Imam Khomeini was different. Other scholars, while respected, did not have the same place in my heart. May God have mercy on Ayatollah Khoei! At that time, he was residing in Najaf, and his knowledge and virtues were widely known. I had great respect for him as well. Once, he was in our room, and someone asked him a religious question. His answer seemed incorrect to me, and I informed him of this. He insisted that his answer was correct, so in protest, I grabbed his collar and said, “Everyone speaks of your knowledge and scholarship, but is this answer really representative of that?” Later, I thought to myself that Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khoei were very different. I could not tolerate even the slightest disappointment from one and grabbed his collar, whereas I never objected to Imam Khomeini.

Our lives passed with such incidents and experiences, which is why I have so many memories. We would travel from place to place, visiting different people. We did not travel to Europe or England, nor did we go abroad; instead, we explored our own country. There was a time I considered traveling abroad. I was told that it was not possible through the French-Spanish border and that I would have to travel to England. However, I did not have a favorable view of England or its government, so I abandoned the idea of going there.

I consider the late Imam a complete mystic, a truthful and beloved figure. The most significant quality of the late Imam was his beloved nature. His father was a warrior and an active figure in society. He had personally experienced the oppression and tyranny of the ruling powers of the time, and he understood the meaning of colonialism and exploitation. He was fearless in battle and was ready to sacrifice countless lives for his faith. In contrast, someone like Ayatollah Golpaygani, who could not bear to see even a drop of blood from a seminary student, would withdraw if the students were mistreated, even if the faith were lost.

Imam Khomeini’s life was marked by struggle and the upheaval of established lives for the sake of faith, and he was well-prepared for such hardships. This is the difference between the life of someone imbued with a beloved nature and someone without it. Ayatollah Golpaygani was a righteous and pious jurist, but he did not possess the same beloved nature as Imam Khomeini. His success, in contrast, was due to his son, Haj-Agha Mahdi, who was sharper than his other children and could not be deceived by anyone.

Once, about six hundred clerics who claimed to be revolutionaries visited the office of Ayatollah Golpaygani and asked him to remove his son from the office. They could not advance their agenda with him around. He was sharp and did not lose his grip. People who opposed Golpaygani even judged him harshly, telling him to send his son away. In the political games of that time, Sayed Mahdi was much more astute than Sayed Ahmad Agha, who was fully devoted to Imam Khomeini and had no independent action. He posed no threat to anyone.

Imam Khomeini was a beloved mystic who had begun his spiritual journey from above and descended to engage with these esteemed figures. The power of someone like him could bring anyone down, and his mystical experiences were not learned in traditional seminaries. He had not been trained in mysticism by people like Shaykh Abadi but had inherited a deep spiritual connection, a fervent love that ran through his veins. He was a teacherless scholar, one who was directly nurtured by divine providence, and had within him a divine yearning for love and truth.

I had a close relationship with the late Ayatollah Pasandideh, who was Imam Khomeini’s elder brother. He used to say that from a young age, Imam Khomeini was different from everyone else. Imam Khomeini was not trained by a human teacher in mysticism; his teacher was divine, and it was through this divine connection that he was endowed with his passion for love and truth. His mysticism was not of the conventional kind; it was one of self-authenticating realization, not dependent on a material teacher or worldly teachings.

In his speeches, Imam Khomeini never relied on memorization. Instead, he spoke from a place of innovation, creating new perspectives. His speeches were not mental constructs based on what he had learned, but rather, they were expressions of his unique, divine understanding. Even in politics, he had an innovative and divine approach. Unfortunately, the powers that be sought to suppress his mystical nature and distort his identity. However, the awareness and awakening of the people thwarted their efforts.

His mysticism was not a matter of theoretical knowledge but was rooted in his connection to the divine, a connection so strong that even the forces of disbelief were drawn to him. He lived his life based on divine guidance, and this was evident in his leadership of the Iranian revolution. Despite facing overwhelming opposition, he stood unwavering, as his strength came from divine providence. Even in politics, he followed a divine path, one that would lead to the liberation of the people.

Imam Khomeini: A People’s Scholar

Imam Khomeini was a scholar deeply connected with the people; he was a companion to them and shared in their lives. His most important quality was his ability to relate to the people. The people are willing to sacrifice themselves for a scholar who is truly of the people. This characteristic of being connected to the people provided the scholar with the strength to lead when necessary, particularly in the defence of religion. Imam Khomeini’s influence and authority were rooted in this very trait. He possessed three remarkable qualities that endeared him to the hearts of the people.

The first was his courage. He was unafraid of anything. In the early stages of his movement, some clerics criticised him, not only opposing his philosophical and mystical views but also rejecting his political stance. Some even accused him of being aligned with the British. Several scholars of that time did not consider political activism during the period of occultation, or the formation of an Islamic government, to be permissible according to Islamic jurisprudence. I recall having a debate on this subject with someone in a Tehran seminary (Jama’at al-Qur’an) when I was a teenager. Over ten students were present. One of the clerics, a mullah, repeated this argument. No matter how much we debated, he did not accept it. I told the students that further debate was futile and that he should be taught a lesson. I struck him so hard on the ear that he fell to the ground, and his turban came off. He complained to the authorities, and I had to go into hiding for about two months. Eventually, it was revealed that this cleric had ties to the military and had been provoking students to identify revolutionary individuals. In the end, they arrested us, and we spent a night in detention before being released through the mediation of one of the scholars. Imam Khomeini, even in his exile, displayed an unprecedented courage when he boldly confronted the regime in Qom during a period of suppression. This was a rare and remarkable courage.

The second factor that distinguished Imam Khomeini and allowed him to surpass even his rivals, in my worldly analysis, was his exceptional oratory. He spoke beautifully and clearly, in a way that resonated with the common people. For example, figures like Ayatollah Golpayegani, Ayatollah Shari’atmadari, or Ayatollah Khui were unable to speak with the same clarity and accessibility to the masses. Although Imam Khomeini was not a traditional preacher or orator, he communicated his thoughts in a simple and heartfelt manner. His speech, though simple, was rich in knowledge, and it drew people in, allowing them to understand that he spoke the truth.

The third defining characteristic of Imam Khomeini was his humanity and his connection with the people. He lived humbly, like a common person. It was said that he had a fan that made noise, but he would not allow anyone to bring him a new one, saying, “Does everyone have a new fan?” At the same time, the people, who loved him deeply, would have given him anything. He could have lived in luxury thanks to the people’s gifts, but he was always mindful of their situation. His humility, and his distance from arrogance and tyranny, were part of what made him so beloved by the people. If an intellectual adopts arrogance, self-importance, or a sense of superiority, the people will lose trust in him, even if he seems to have power or influence. The people could tell if a person’s external façade did not match their inner character. Imam Khomeini’s love for and attention to the people permeated all of his speech and actions; it was the essence of his personality.

Imam Khomeini rose up against the Shah at a time when Mohammad Reza Shah was hosting the best mourning ceremonies for Imam Hussein in the country, in the former Sepah Salar school. He would wear black, and many took pride in his Shi’ism, considering supporting him as supporting a Shi’a monarch. At times, when people protested against the Shah, he would sit in a mosque, pretend to mourn, and even had elegists recite lamentations in his name. Imam Khomeini opposed this portrayal, believing that if the Shah were removed, he himself would be able to take control of the country. Imam Khomeini utilised the people’s emotions to the fullest extent in his struggle against the Shah’s regime. However, the initial revolutionary fervour was not yet coupled with reason, awareness, or education. Enthusiasm, if not linked to awareness, often leads to unchecked passions, hostility, and even injustice against one’s enemies. The Islamic Revolution, however, eventually imbued the people with knowledge and awareness. Over the last three decades, society has grown more than it had in the past two hundred years, and people are no longer easily deceived. The current generation, despite being called the “lost generation,” has gained wisdom and insight from the challenges they faced, and the martyrs of the revolution have played a significant role in raising the collective consciousness of the society. The youth of today are more intelligent than their predecessors, although this intelligence can lead them astray if not guided correctly.

Critique of the Shah

During the Pahlavi regime, there were significant constraints, but we managed to establish a scholarly circle that brought together scholars from all walks of life. In one such gathering, they asked me my opinion on Mohammad Reza Shah. The aim of their question was to pressure me, to corner me, and obtain evidence from me. The atmosphere was one of strict censorship, and open opposition to the Shah was virtually impossible. Initially, I praised Mohammad Reza Shah. I mentioned that he was an excellent pilot and spoke French fluently, and though he had many positive qualities, he did not value religion or adhere to its principles. His supporters claimed that this was not a significant issue, and it did not matter that he was not religious. No one was upset by my statement. I said that Mohammad Reza Shah was well regarded in Europe, considered a progressive monarch, but his lack of religious devotion was his only flaw. His supporters were pleased with my comments, which seemed to endorse the Shah’s positive attributes.

Later, I was asked again about the Shah, and I repeated the same points: the Shah was an excellent pilot, and his knowledge of foreign languages was impressive, but he was not religious. Some, who were more astute, agreed with me, acknowledging that his lack of faith was the real problem. Those who were loyal to the Shah, however, could not comprehend my critique, believing that I was merely praising him. In truth, I was being honest with God. Mohammad Reza Shah eventually met the same fate as Saddam Hussein and many other rulers. What remains, however, is the legacy of their oppression. Oppression never leads to a good outcome.

Protests and Rhetoric

We never intended to engage in conflict or quarrels; we were not people of strife. A proverb says, “The donkey does not mind the load.” After the revolution, those who knew me from the past remarked that I was once hot-headed and full of passion. Many of those who were once wise and calculating were now imitating the foolishness we once displayed. Today, it is important for us to be wise, for we no longer need to be fools. In the past, I would critique the Shah’s book On the Path of Great Civilisation from memory during my speeches. Many were too frightened to do the same. I recall that some of those who are now in positions of power and leadership once sat on motorbikes, ready to escape if the Shah’s secret police arrived. After the revolution, these same individuals became members of parliament or leaders in various sectors, and now, without fear, they say whatever they wish, often praising anyone in power.

During those early days, I openly criticised the Shah and the regime. From the pulpit, I urged people to leave their administrative posts, and some did, leading to trouble from the regime. When I spoke, people truly feared the consequences. Today, those who were once afraid are now the ones speaking out without restraint, while we must remain wise and thoughtful. This transition from fear to confidence illustrates how much has changed since the revolution.

**In Qom, I also used to give sermons and lectures during the month of Ramadan. The distance between our house, which was in the city centre, and the place where I lectured was approximately the same as the distance from here (the Fayzieh School) to the Safaieh Street. I used to walk on foot from the middle of the street to the place of the lecture. No driver dared to pick me up, nor did any vehicle dare to overtake me. The street would become completely congested and blocked. The intelligence officers would ask me to travel in their car because every day the street would become obstructed and overcrowded. When I walked through the streets on foot, I used to whisper to myself, recalling the spirit of Imam Muslim, who was accompanied by the hearts of the people, yet no one dared to stand by him, just like my own situation. I would think to myself, ‘What connection do I have with Imam Muslim?’ However, nowadays, I feel the meaning of that connection and loneliness even more deeply.

In short, I finally got into a white Paykan. At that time, the Paykan was considered a luxurious Iranian car. As I mentioned earlier, I felt the presence of Imam Muslim within me because the hearts were with him, but people were cowards and fearful. We suffered greatly because of the Islamic Revolution. Unfortunately, some have sold this revolution as if it were worthless. For this reason, we have become very wise and cautious, no longer prone to fights and conflicts. As the saying goes, that madness was enough for seven generations of our descendants. The mere fact that a person resists and does not become a disbeliever, even if they die, is the true victory and salvation. One must not be arrogant, not engage in arguments or conflicts, not deceive, and not harm God’s servants. One’s efforts and will should be directed towards ensuring that no harm is caused, even to an ant, let alone to a human being. Sometimes, a person’s intention may not be to harm anyone, but inevitably, injustice and oppression occur. Therefore, vigilance is essential. The first point of attention is that we do not quarrel or engage in disputes with anyone. Yet, some people do engage in arguments, create conflicts, and become deceivers.

SAVAK and the Bojnord Prison

Before the revolution, there were times when I was carelessly arrested by the SAVAK officers. I was imprisoned in a cell. One of the officers, who was the head of the police in Bojnord, became very fond of me after meeting me and showed great enthusiasm and respect towards me. He was a colonel and the head of the Bojnord police, and I happened to be there one Friday night. This colonel was a very decent and respectable person. He asked me, ‘Haj Agha, where are you from?’ I replied, ‘Sarcheshmeh.’ He said, ‘Then we are from the same place!’ I also told him I was from Tehran. He treated me with great respect. He ordered that two clean blankets be brought to me and transferred me to the general prison. Because of his deep admiration for me, during the short time I spent in the Bojnord police station, he called me several times by name, yet I did not respond at first. Finally, I asked him, ‘What do you want from me? Am I God? Am I a Prophet? Am I Bayazid? Who am I?’ This officer was a mystical person with spiritual inclinations, and to him, meeting me was like discovering a spiritual gem. That night, the police chief entered my cell and, without saying a word, hugged me, kissed me, and then left. Some of the SAVAK officers were also involved, and they acted with kindness. May his soul rest in peace; that police chief was a very good man. Do not think that all people are bad. That police chief would swear on his family’s honour and say that as long as I was in the cell, he would not return home. Eventually, I was freed from prison, and he returned to his home in Ahmadabad, Mashhad. He had a connection with a senior colonel in the Shah’s regime. Apparently, he tampered with and reconstructed my file to have me released.

The next day, he wanted to take me to meet his superior, Colonel. He said, ‘Haj Agha, Colonel wants to meet you.’ One of the guards asked me to blindfold my eyes. I replied, ‘I promise my eyes will remain closed. I can close my eyes willingly and not see anything; I have the ability to not see even with my eyes open.’ The guard initially did not accept my word and said he needed to check with Colonel. The colonel agreed to my request. The police chief had spoken so highly of me to the colonel that he was impressed. I, too, remained respectful and closed my eyes completely, walking through the prison corridor. The colonel looked at me but did not say anything or ask me a question. Later that afternoon, I was released from the prison. Even when my eyes are closed, I can still ‘see’ from behind me. It is a natural ability of those who have walked the path of wisdom: they develop a kind of awareness where all their senses are heightened.

I have written extensively about my time in prison, including the experiences I had and the political and economic actors in Iran. I have even written a thick book on my observations, which is currently stored away in a safe, awaiting the right moment for publication. I also documented my seven-month stay in Evin Prison in 2015, which I have written down as a factual account.

In the SAVAK Prison

I am now over sixty years old. We are from the older generation who have lived through two different lives: thirty years under the Pahlavi regime and twenty-nine arrests by the SAVAK, and thirty years under the Islamic Republic with frequent harassment and restrictions. Under the Pahlavi regime, the political and security strategy was to frighten and silence the freedom-seekers. On one occasion, the SAVAK imprisoned me in a place where a ferocious dog was kept. The dog was behind a mesh fence and had a massive body, resembling a lion in its ferocity. I thought to myself, ‘Where do they find such animals?’ The dog was constantly barking, but I quickly realised that the dog could not jump over the fence, and its intimidating appearance was a mere act to frighten me. I calmly sat down, adjusted my turban on my head, and stared at the dog for about ten to fifteen minutes as it kept barking. Eventually, I called the guards and began begging them, saying, ‘For God’s sake, please, I beg you by the Shah’s name, open the door, so I can give some meat to this dog. I want to feed him some of the meat from my own chest.’ I was well-built and physically fit. The guards wrote in their reports that I was a mad, crazy cleric. They could not comprehend the concept of self-sacrifice. Unfortunately, some people, like animals, walk past one another without even acknowledging each other, let alone offering a simple greeting. Such behaviour is deplorable. It is essential to greet others and offer a smile, even in passing.

Before the revolution, I was an active revolutionary and known for my courage. The SAVAK officers considered me a fearless, brave cleric. They had planned to intimidate me. As I mentioned earlier, they imprisoned me in a place with a wild dog. When that failed to break me, they transferred me to a room with walls made entirely of glass. In this room, the air was controlled. The atmosphere was manipulated to make breathing difficult for me, and I would occasionally struggle to catch my breath. When my breathing became laboured, I threw my cloak over my shoulder and went into prostration, repeatedly reciting the phrase ‘Subhan Allah’ in my prayers. I chose this phrase because it requires less breath, as opposed to ‘Astaghfir Allah,’ which demands more energy. This practice helped me manage the suffocating air and maintain my composure during that time.**

**It also causes fatigue in humans. However, the recitation of “Subhan Allah” not only takes less energy and requires less breath, but also holds an excellent content. As I mentioned earlier, my breath had become difficult, and sometimes I couldn’t breathe at all. Yet, I spent the sweetest moments of my life in that prison. There, I would recall the hardships of Imam Musa al-Kadhim and his imprisonment, where he was captured and imprisoned by his enemies for fourteen years. I used to wonder how that great Imam endured the suffering in the prison of Sind ibn Shahik. In reality, when a person faces such difficulties, they lose their strength unless they prepare themselves for death. Human psychological capacity is limited. Events and the human psyche have boundaries.

Once, I had a dream in which someone placed a large rifle on the crown of my head, right where I normally place my forehead in prostration. The person kept striking my head with the rifle, and I continuously recited the prayer “Ya Ali, Ya Ali.” Tonight is the night of the Eid of Imam Ali, and this serves as the backdrop to share this memory. I consider myself a fifty-year-old man, with little time left in this world, born with the fate of an executioner. In that dream, I kept saying “Ya Ali” repeatedly, being cautious to ensure that when the person fired, my breath would not be empty of the prayer. I managed my breath in a specific way as I kept reciting the prayer. Quran reciters are skilled in what is known as ‘breath theft.’ As a child, I practiced Quran recitation, and I had trained myself in this technique. Sometimes, a reciter can read one or two long verses in one breath, though the reality is different, and the reciter uses multiple breaths for a single verse. I had this skill as well, and I made sure that when the person fired, I was not in silence but instead engaged in reciting “Ya Ali” continuously. When I woke up, my body was drenched in sweat because I had endured great pressure. The reality is that our strength is limited, and we cannot bear all circumstances.

As I mentioned earlier, the glass-walled prison with controlled air had a door that, once closed, could not be reopened. The SAVAK agents began playing games with us by controlling the oxygen in that room. I didn’t search for the door; instead, I leaned against the glass and started talking to it. I said to the glass, “You are so transparent, beautiful, clear, and blooming now. No eye can discern your door from your wall. But one day, you will no longer have a door or a glass, and this place will turn into a ruin, a desert, a rubbish dump where animals and insects will reside.” I spoke to the glass so much that those outside became tired. But if someone in such a situation is restless and constantly seeks a way out, they will tire themselves and become hopeless. However, this glass-walled prison is still intact, and it has a long way to go before reaching the fate I have described.

Home Inspection

During the Shah’s reign, I used to acquire many weapons. This was known among the prominent revolutionary clerics. Some of those who became important figures after the revolution were my students and were trained under my supervision in the use of weapons. At that time, one of those arrested was Mr. Bushiri. He had been intimidated and, out of fear, had revealed that I possessed smuggled weapons. Our house at the time was in the power plant area. It was only sixty square meters, and there was no way to hide anything in it. One day, the SAVAK agents raided our house. I had two revolvers. I noticed that a prayer rug was spread in the middle of the room, and I placed the two revolvers inside the rug, folding one side over the other and leaving it there. I sat down and removed my turban, placing it on my knee. The agents stormed in, and I didn’t move from my spot. They were psychologists and professionals, observing my eye movements. At times, I would glance at the air conditioner or a picture frame, but I never paid attention to the prayer rug. They went to the air conditioner and even picked up the picture frame but found nothing. They didn’t touch the prayer rug or even step on it. These men were Muslims, and they didn’t disrespect the prayer rug. Those who lack respect for others and act violently must have some deep-seated false beliefs within them. They turned our books upside down, searched through every quilt and cushion, and even went up to the roof, but they found nothing and eventually left. Later, I met the commander of that SAVAK operation, and I recognized him. I wanted to confront him. I told him, “The day you came, there were two revolvers in front of your eyes, but you didn’t see them. Go and lower your face.”

Brave Brother

I spent my childhood in Tehran. The children of Tehran were very mischievous and playful. They were also very observant. I remember they would joke and harass people who didn’t appear very well, attaching pictures or writings to the back of these people’s clothes. The person, unaware of the prank, would continue walking, while others would laugh at the situation, turning it into a traveling billboard. When I came to Qom with my younger brother, he would do the same with the SAVAK agents. One of those agents had a habit of parking his car in front of the shrine’s gate. My brother would also paste Imam Khomeini’s leaflets on the kiosks near the police station and boldly attach them to the backs of the SAVAK agents. How brave he was! The SAVAK agents, unaware of this, would continue their way, while people would notice the leaflets on their backs and become curious. Eventually, they would realize these were the leaflets of Imam Khomeini, who was still referred to as “Mr. Khomeini” at the time. Imam Khomeini would continuously issue leaflets. My brother carried out these unexpected actions, and his playful activities as a child in Qom consisted of these very acts. He was truly courageous to an extraordinary degree. He was injured in the front lines and nearly lost his eyesight. His recovery story between God and me is something I will share at the right time. This is one of those instances when I sat down on a log and said, “Do whatever you want. If you want to capture me, then do it, but…”

The Islamic Revolution and the Martyrdom of the Seminary Students

During the Shah’s tyranny, as the flames of the Islamic Revolution were rising, the authorities had the Fayzieh Seminary surrounded. These agents were ordinary, not special forces who claimed they would come by helicopter from Tehran. These agents begged the seminarians to leave the Fayzieh Seminary and go elsewhere. They said that if the commandos arrived, they would show no mercy. I stood beside the seminarians, observing the situation. Their commander was Colonel Javadi, who tried to handle everything peacefully to avoid a confrontation with the commandos. He said, “I have sat with the scholars in these rooms, and I’ve eaten lamb stew with them. I love you all, and I feel sorry for you. The commandos are really coming, and they will beat all of you. Please, leave here and don’t hold a protest.” He then asked, “Which one of you understands logic well?” Some of the students pointed to me, saying, “He does.” He approached me and asked, “What do you say?” I replied, “Dear sir, you want to talk logically, but what do you want from these people?” He said, “I want to prevent these precious young seminarians from being beaten.” I said, “Their logic is that they want to die for their faith and for Mr. Khomeini, let alone be beaten. Their logic is martyrdom and perseverance for God. They are standing here because they want to see who will kill them. Your logic is in contrast to theirs.” He said, “Then there’s nothing I can do.”

In the end, this commander was a good man who genuinely cared for the seminarians. He knew the viciousness and cruelty of the commandos who were supposed to suppress the protests at Fayzieh. He wanted to live a peaceful life himself and didn’t want to make enemies. On that day, the commandos arrived and attacked the seminarians. They would surround one seminarian with ten of them and pass him around like a football, beating him so violently that he was torn to pieces. They would throw their bloodied corpses into a truck and take them away. This incident occurred in 1974. The commandos created a path and seminarians were beaten with boots, fists, and batons. Some seminarians had their nerves damaged from the terror and became mentally ill. I witnessed one of the commandos placing a pen under a seminarian’s nose and striking it so hard that the pen tore through his skull. These seminarians were so sacred. They would take one seminarian from his room, and fifty commandos would take turns beating him until his corpse was thrown into the truck. How much suffering did these seminarians endure for their faith and for the revolution? They were so silent, so noble, and so selfless, sacrificing themselves for the system.

The State of This World and the State of the Hereafter

At times, I draw a parallel between events to illustrate the difference between the state of the world and the state of the hereafter. The state of this world is like Colonel Javadi, adaptable and lenient, despite the fact that it is governed by a nature that is intelligent and seeks justice. Yet, in general, this world remains harmonious with God’s servants as much as it can. In contrast, the state of the hereafter is like the group of commandos who are utterly unyielding and show no consideration for others. One who prays, “O God, purify me, cleanse me,” knows full well what awaits in the state of the hereafter. Here, the government is human. How fortunate is the person who can utilise the freedom of this world; but once they reach that state, no mercy remains. As long as a person lives in this world, they still have the opportunity to act for themselves.

I would also like to make a brief reference to today’s Islamic Revolution, which has fallen under the control of the mafia of wealth and power. I envision the face of a cleric who, during his interrogation, was beaten so severely by the commandos that he went into a state of shock. Lately, I see things that would make any free soul wish for death. In those days, how many noble young people sacrificed themselves for the faith; young people who, just like Colonel Javadi, were regarded as precious by others. However, today, there are those who put on the airs of powerful figures in the country and, with complete shamelessness, play games with the system and even with the blood of martyrs. These are the same individuals who, one day, will be humiliated and expelled from this world by the suffering masses.

May God bless the soul of the late Imam. One of the most profound phrases ever uttered by him was when he said, “I am a cleric.” Even at the height of his leadership, he never said, “I am the leader,” or anything to that effect. This statement was not a show of false humility, for humility stems from weakness. Rather, he distanced himself from those clerics who become part of the mafia, turn their backs on their vocation, and secretly ally with the powerful, flaunting their power while adorning themselves with falsehoods, all in an attempt to distance themselves from the people and their essence. Such a person is no longer a part of this society; they are but mannequins in the display windows of the nation.

Critique of the Ideology-Formation of the Late Dr. Shariati

May God have mercy on Imam Khomeini! He had a right-wing ideology but displayed actions akin to those of the left-wingers. The right-wing individuals were good people, yet their actions were always accompanied by weakness. Before the revolution, Mr. Shariati had a strong presence in society, delivering passionate speeches. My view about Mr. Shariati was that religious seminaries should not criticize or condemn him and those like him. These individuals were well-known, respectable, and loved by society. It would have been better for the prominent figures in the seminaries to invite figures like him for a healthy dialogue, to discuss and critique his thoughts with his presence. Argument and conflict do not solve problems. Sometimes, such individuals were accused of offering prayers in the Sunni manner or of having connections with the Wahhabis, and they were even falsely accused of receiving money from them. Sometimes, checks were forged and presented as evidence. All these rumors were false and baseless. Mr. Shariati was a simple teacher, yet eloquent and articulate. He sometimes exaggerated his views, and some of his opinions were entirely incorrect, which is natural for someone in his position. He himself saw himself as a teacher, not a scholar or philosopher. He presented the ideas he had thought through, and if they were good, they should be accepted; otherwise, they should be critiqued. This kind of critique and intellectual exchange is beneficial for creating a dynamic and motivating atmosphere in academic fields. Such individuals are not philosophers or scholars, but their efforts can still be useful, rather than having them ostracized from society.

A wrathful or militaristic approach to intellectuals, thinkers, and researchers, if it leads to their anger, will turn their talents into weapons against the powerful. If they become very angry, they might even collaborate with the enemies; however, they will no longer yield to those who oppose them. When you fail to treat scholars and intellectuals with kindness, they will seek the warmth and affection of outsiders. Mr. Shariati would typically admit his mistakes because he understood the limits of his own knowledge. Before the revolution, I once debated with him in a session. Mr. Shariati put forward the theory of transforming religion into an ideology, arguing that a religious worldview should lead to an ideology — in his terminology — in order to be useful and effective in practice. The discussion went on until three in the morning, and we all went to sleep afterwards. I hardly sleep, so I woke up after half an hour, while they slept until dawn. They complained that we hadn’t woken them for the morning prayer. I said to them that the problem with religion and society lies not at the theoretical level, but in the practical implementation, which requires capable execution. You know that one of the religious duties, the obligation to perform the morning prayer, but today you failed to act on it because you didn’t have a strategy for managing sleep and wakefulness. Religious practice, too, has both a theoretical and a practical aspect. First, the individual must reform their own understanding and relationship with religion, then religious duties should be fulfilled, and prayers should be established. Religion benefits those who are, first and foremost, human beings. Otherwise, even the act of praying holds no value for them. We talk about religion and religious practice, giving it labels and categorizing it as a religious ideology. It may have different names in philosophical or theological terms, such as logical, radical, or even fanciful ideologies.

I told Mr. Shariati that he should not feel ashamed for missing the prayer because it was a result of his own ideological practice. It was his belief system that led to the neglect of prayer. Moreover, the religion he spoke of lacked the depth of expertise and had many embellishments. In fact, by presenting an ideological version of religion, he added further embellishments to it. First, he needed to reform his beliefs before he could perform his religious duties properly. One of his views was that mourning ceremonies and chest-beating during Ashura were not beneficial and should be eradicated from society. He saw these rituals as addictive and detrimental, suggesting they should be suddenly and completely eliminated from the cultural fabric of society. This view disregarded the fact that cultural change is gradual, regardless of whether it conveys something right or wrong. When I saw the distress of the group for missing their prayer, I jokingly and with a hint of sarcasm said, “In this intellectual and ideological state, it might be better if you refrain from praying altogether. Once your thoughts are reformed, then you can resume your prayers.”

Religion and religious interpretations have been among the most oppressed elements of the Age of Occultation, with many claiming to possess profound understanding, yet often lacking the requisite expertise. These claims often came from individuals with limited knowledge, and nowadays, such claims seem more and more disconnected from reality.

I have been close to both Martyr Motahhari and Mr. Shariati, and I know them well. Each of them had their own system of thought. Both were devout Muslims, noble and from the same region, and they had a good relationship with each other. In fact, it was Martyr Motahhari who brought Mr. Shariati from Mashhad to Tehran. Like Martyr Motahhari, Mr. Shariati played a significant role in the revolution, giving speeches to university students and stirring them against the oppressive Pahlavi regime. As a result, he faced imprisonment and exile. However, like Motahhari’s writings, Mr. Shariati’s works were not without flaws. The mistakes in his books are far from few, and there are numerous inaccuracies. Mr. Shariati was neither an anti-revolutionary, a spy, nor a servant of the West. He was a warm-hearted, emotional person who was influenced by his feelings and sometimes delved into areas outside his expertise. Had he not been killed, perhaps he would have worked on revising and correcting his books. What mattered was the sincerity and purity in his heart.

I also admired Martyr Motahhari. I consider him one of the finest scholars in terms of his inner purity. He had exceptional talent, was noble and pious, but from an academic standpoint, I would not place him among the top few scholars. He was an excellent commentator, capable of articulating the ideas of past scholars. However, he did not receive support from the seminaries or religious authorities. He had to leave Qom for Tehran to teach at the University of Tehran to make ends meet, which he later regretted. He even spoke about how he was effectively “commissioned” to teach at the university. I once invited around forty scholars from Qom to bring him back, and I attended some of his classes. He spoke in a modern and contemporary manner.

Among the revolutionaries, I consider Martyr Chamran as the most knowledgeable, committed, and pure-hearted. He was an outstanding figure in terms of his knowledge, his commitment to the revolution, and his integrity. Martyr Rajai was also excellent, but his academic knowledge was limited. After Chamran, I regard Martyr Motahhari as the second most important revolutionary figure. He was noble, pious, and dedicated to research and inquiry. Despite being married and having family responsibilities, he never sought excessive financial support from religious authorities and had to go to Tehran to teach. How much hardship did this man endure when he was about to leave, and how regretful he must have been that he didn’t resist and stay in Qom.

Before the revolution, I used to lecture in academic circles about the concept of an Islamic government. When they heard my analysis of the religious government model, they were very eager, and as they say, “sugar melted in their hearts,” wishing for the establishment of an Islamic government. When I spoke about religion and its role in governance, it painted an image of a utopian society, far superior to Plato’s ideal state — a perfect, harmonious system. Even today, after thirty years, I repeat what I told Dr. Shariati that morning: Words alone do not benefit us. One can talk endlessly, but it is the application of ideas that is difficult and challenging. The real problem with religion, even if the theoretical framework is correct and a strong theory is in place, lies in the practical implementation. The successful implementation of religion in society requires capable, wise, and insightful individuals.

After the revolution, many of my students and those who attended my lectures began to criticize the emerging chaos, asking if this was the same utopia I had once promised. I replied that I was a person not involved in the management of the revolution and that governance was not shaped by my plans.

The Disagreement Among Religious Jurisprudents and the Straight Path of Wilayat (Guardianship)

As I have mentioned before, after the year 1960, I withdrew from the political and social scene, and I have outlined some of the reasons for this. The actions of others in the years that followed are no longer relevant to us. Since 1960, I have focused on theorizing and producing knowledge, and the plans that I believe could save the revolution and the government from their problems are presented in my books. Over the years, I have delineated the practical lines of the Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist) system, the Islamic economic system, and other necessary jurisprudential discussions; however, others have pursued whatever actions they wished, and the events that occurred are not related to us. During these years, many theories have been presented, and each person has had their period for assessing the correctness or incorrectness of their ideas. In the time of the Occultation of the Imam, the gate of Shi’ite Ijtihad (jurisprudential reasoning) has been the same as the gate for theorizing and the production of religious knowledge, which, of course, has sometimes deviated, and I have discussed this in my book The Sociology of Religious Scholars. Many of these juristic opinions and theories are afflicted with negligence or are overly simplistic, and some are outright false, incorrect, and superficial. Even during the time of the infallible Imams (A.S.), there existed Ijtihad and the development of religious knowledge; it was never the case that religious scholars simply conveyed the religious rulings issued by the infallible Imams without applying their own Ijtihad. Some governments have also claimed to support movements of intellectual and theoretical development. There have been individuals who have both claimed authority over governance and have presented executable theories. In any case, the production of theories based on scientific principles is praiseworthy.

Before the revolution, when the country was under the control of the regime’s commandos and subjected to the reign of the SAVAK (Shah’s intelligence service), oppression and tyranny prevailed everywhere. I visited the late Ayatollah Seyed Ahmad Khonsari, who was a highly respected figure and considered a “king” in Tehran. He had considerable influence, especially in the markets of Tehran, where people followed him. He was a well-known and respected marja’ (religious authority) for the traders and was also prominent in religious seminaries. One day, I went to visit him and said, “Until you step forward and become the flagbearer, this revolution will not begin and will not reach any conclusion. The regime’s commandos are beating and hurting people, but if you act, this oppression and chaos will end.” He responded, “I have no justification for rising up.” Ayatollah Khonsari had disagreements with Ayatollah Khomeini and had valid and logical reasons for his position. He said, “Experience has shown me that we gather, start a revolution, and people come forward, sacrificing their lives, shedding their blood. But later, the revolution and government will be taken from us, and the people will only suffer.” He was elderly and had much experience and wisdom, having witnessed the events of past revolutions, especially the cases of Ayatollah Kashani and Dr. Mossadegh, whose stories were not distant in history. I replied, “Haj-Agha, your view is correct. Ayatollah Khomeini also believes that until now, this has been the case, but they say that everyone should be present to ensure the revolution succeeds, and with the presence of all the major figures, they should not let the revolution slip out of our control.” He responded, “I know myself, and I do not have the ability to carry out this task. If Ayatollah Khomeini is capable, then so be it. I have no opposition to his actions or views, but if I participate, people will follow, and their blood will be shed. The revolution, which is gained through the blood of the people, will be taken from us, and then I will be responsible according to Sharia, and I will not have the ability to answer for it. I know my own limits, and I do not have the ability to keep the revolution from falling into the hands of the unqualified.”

Additionally, before the revolution, I lived in a guesthouse that was affiliated with the shrine of Imam Reza. Mr. Tabasi and Mr. Hashemi-Nejad were also present there. The late Mr. Hashemi-Nejad was very revolutionary and fiery in his speeches at the time. He used to write his sermons in a notebook and read from it. Because of this, he would repeat his speeches verbatim in different places. At that time, it was rumored that Ayatollah Khoei had given a ring as a gift to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. For this reason, Mr. Tabasi did not consider following Ayatollah Khoei’s jurisprudence to be permissible. In response to his stance, I said, “If Ayatollah Khoei did such a thing, it was a mistake and his opinion is incorrect, but we must acknowledge that Ayatollah Khoei is a jurist, and he has determined that his actions are without issue. It is possible that another jurist, like Imam Khomeini, may find this action problematic, but we should not close the door of Ijtihad to everyone or restrict it. Just as Mr. Tabasi is passing judgment and offering an opinion in this dispute, could it not be the case that a jurist has the right to do so?” Mrs. Farah Pahlavi also considered herself a member of the Hasani lineage and thus thought she was connected to Ayatollah Khoei. In this context, a gift was given to this family. Of course, Ayatollah Khomeini also criticized Ayatollah Khoei for this. Regardless, I brought up Mr. Tabasi’s position in another meeting and said, “Ayatollah Khomeini is a jurist and has issued a religious opinion that I do not follow, but he cannot consider Ayatollah Khoei’s actions sinful because Ayatollah Khoei is a jurist in his own right. Moreover, Ayatollah Khoei believed his action was correct, and he likely considered his actions to be aligned with the Hasani lineage while Ayatollah Khomeini considered his actions to be in line with the Husayni lineage. This does not disqualify Ayatollah Khoei from issuing a legal opinion.” Mr. Hashemi-Nejad agreed with me and said that one could not claim that following any Shi’ite jurist like Ayatollah Khoei was invalid, even if their opinion was incorrect. At that time, he did not consider it impossible that Ayatollah Khomeini’s opinion might be incorrect, but certainly, Ayatollah Khomeini had his evidence and reasoning, and there was no need for us to investigate his proof.

End of Translation of Text

I mentioned to Hajj Muhammad Khansari that the flood of seditions has swept many people away, and a solution should be found. He responded that this is not problematic, as throughout history there have always been floods under various names and titles that have carried away many, but those who remain—though few—are the loyal ones, and they continue to serve the cause of guardianship (Wilayah) and keep its path alive. This line will never be extinguished or come to an end. I raised an objection to Ayatollah Bahjat, stating that Islam is being slaughtered and that if figures like him are absent, nothing of the faith will remain. I asked him what he found solace in, in such a situation. Ultimately, the most reassuring stance on this matter came from Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad, who said that those who remain will be loyal, and he said it with calmness and assurance, adding that there is no harm in this. He was never in favour of the idea of establishing a government or political actions like these. Such stances may gain more followers in the future, and some seminaries and scholars may incline towards this direction and abandon their current revolutionary approach, but as Ayatollah Khansari mentioned, the path of guardianship will continue.

What is being stated here is that they say the revolution will continue until the appearance of the Mahdi (May Allah hasten his reappearance), and they argue that the goal is for the revolution to reach the hands of the Imam, which requires a long time for the revolution to mature and become truly loyal. This means we must think in terms of over a thousand years, not forty years or less, as is often claimed. These are emotional slogans that are pleasing and desirable for every Shia, but the conditions for the government of the Imam of the Age are very hard, challenging, and prolonged. If the saints possess guardianship, they must be divine, and their spiritual rank must be akin to that of prophets, righteous ones, noble people, and the saints (awtad). In this regard, there is no difference between a prophet, an Imam, a jurist, or a true Muslim. Each of them, if they gained power, would have the duty to establish the faith.

Nevertheless, there are limitations and hardships. When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “No prophet has been harmed as much as I have,” it illustrates that there were significant restrictions! They were unable to openly establish the faith. Otherwise, why did the Prophet not openly proclaim his message in Mecca? Even after gaining power, Amir al-Mu’minin (Ali) was faced with numerous wars. Imam Ali (peace be upon him) could have refused the people’s invitation to accept the leadership, but when the people’s power was with him, that power became the reason for him to establish the faith, and thus he accepted it. Similarly, Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) did not receive an invitation from the people until he received letters from the people of Kufa and travelled to Karbala. Although the validity of the letters from Kufa was clear to Imam Hussain, the pressure became so great that he had no choice but to move, and he realized that only through his martyrdom would the banner of the faith remain raised and serve as a guide.

The matter of guardianship is very complex, difficult, and intricate. Our judgments regarding matters of guardianship are often inaccurate and frequently mistaken. In reality, the strategy and reasoning of the infallible Imams were that if they based their actions on confrontation and resistance, the institution of Imamate would perish. Therefore, they focused on intellectual and cultural efforts, and their aim was to avoid creating conflict and division. If individuals like Mukhtar and Zayd sought their help to raise the banner of revolt, the Imams would not intervene in their affairs, as their strategy was that after their defeat, the enemies would come to the Imams. Therefore, they focused on promoting the concept of guardianship through cultural and intellectual means as best as they could. In reality, based on their divine knowledge, they knew that they would not come to power, but if they had, they would have realized this goal, just as Imam al-Mahdi (may Allah hasten his reappearance) knows that he will gain power and establish the global government of the Age of Reappearance.

The divine knowledge of the Imam is broader and more profound than other sources of knowledge, and the infallible Imams (peace be upon them) often utilised this knowledge in many situations. In establishing the truth and forming a religious government, there is no difference between a prophet, an Imam, and an ordinary person. That is, if an Imam were to gain the conditions for establishing a government, but an ordinary individual succeeded in establishing one, it would be obligatory for them to establish the truth, whereas due to the absence of the required conditions, this may not be obligatory for the infallible Imam. However, these issues should be approached in a scholarly and reasoned manner, and we have discussed them in our books, where we have also addressed the incorrect views of individuals like Martyr Motahari in this regard.

Furthermore, none of the types of government are fully inclusive of all individuals nor exclude outsiders. Even the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), until he attained power, did not seek to establish a religious government; only in Medina did he pursue this goal. The duty of a prophet is primarily to deliver the message, and sometimes to establish, and there is a clear difference between these two. Other prophets did not establish governments, as establishing a religious government was not part of their prophetic or messianic duties. They were only tasked with delivering and proclaiming the faith, and the establishment of the faith depends on the level of power, which we have discussed in “The New Foundations of Rights,” where we have also critiqued some views on this matter.

Religious propagation also depends on one’s capacity, and if there is a risk to one’s life, this duty is annulled. The propagation of the faith may either be discontinued or carried out in secret, unless the time comes when there is no longer any need for precaution, and the preservation of the faith becomes reliant on self-sacrifice and the offering of one’s life. If any of the infallible Imams (peace be upon them) had the ability to establish a religious government, they would have done so. Imam Ali (peace be upon him) had this power, but the goal of Ma’mun was to kill Imam Ali and accuse him of seeking power. Similarly, in the narrations, it is mentioned that Imam Ali (peace be upon him) said to Ma’mun, “I know you and your objectives.” Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) pursued this goal, but the people of Kufa betrayed him, and Imam Ali (peace be upon him) also established a government.

A similar question arises when Imam Ali (peace be upon him) was offered leadership during the time of the council (Shura), but he refused to accept the condition of allegiance to the two caliphs. Of course, understanding these various situations is crucial. Anyone who believes that Imam Ali (peace be upon him) could have taken power is not a person of thorough research and reflection. If Imam Ali (peace be upon him) had known that he had the ability to establish a government, he would undoubtedly have done so and would not have hesitated for a moment. Some do not understand the position and conditions of Amir al-Mu’minin and pass incorrect judgments from a distance.

The key point here is that government is contingent on power, and whether it is the Prophet, an Imam, or an ordinary individual, if they have power, they will establish a religious government and consider it their duty. Otherwise, it is not obligatory for them. Even if an individual has the ability to do this secretly, they would take on this responsibility. At one time, Amir al-Mu’minin had the opportunity to establish a government and did so. Just as at other times, he refrained from doing so and did not take up arms to gain it. The same occurred with Imam Hussain (peace be upon him). Imam Hassan (peace be upon him) was also obliged to make peace. During the time of Imam Zayn al-Abidin (peace be upon him), the system of Imamate faced estrangement and concealment, and it took on a cultural and intellectual approach. After this, the Imams did not intervene in establishing a government, as they knew from their divine knowledge that success in this endeavor was not possible, and it would only lead to the wasting of resources and human efforts.

The prophets strive to guide people and wish for their well-being and life, whereas rulers suppress the people in order to maintain power. The goal of the prophets in guiding people is not to attain the status of prophethood, but their main aim is to guide the people themselves. They have already attained prophethood before they begin guiding others. On the other hand, the rulers seek power through the support of the people, and even after gaining power, it is uncertain whether they will remain loyal to the people they once supported. In fact, they may, for the sake of maintaining their own power, oppress the very people they once fought to empower. Prophethood is an inherent characteristic of the prophets. Rulers, in contrast, track and might even subjugate the people to rule over them. Therefore, governance is the final characteristic of ordinary rulers. They do not pursue a people-centric goal in ruling; however, the prophets are purpose-driven, with their goal being the guidance of the people, even though this may sometimes involve governance over them.

That is why prophets do not resort to force or power to guide people. If a need arises within society, they perform miracles and possess special abilities, as their primary task is to guide and educate. Prophets may attain governance through teaching and learning, but their rule is never based on force or coercion, as guidance cannot be achieved through force. In contrast, a ruler can maintain power through force, using violence and oppression to secure it, because their essence is power, which is gained through violence, not through teaching and guidance. The nature of these two types of leadership differs: the first has the aspect of guidance, while the latter seeks to control and maintain personal peace through power. The prophets conveyed their teachings sincerely, and if they gained power, their aim was to eliminate corruption and create a peaceful environment for the people.

Even in prophetic governance, including cases of capital punishment, which are specifically reserved for the leaders of disbelief rather than the general populace, the aim is to ensure the guidance and well-being of the people. Moreover, the verses of the Qur’an explain the religious methods of governance and clarify that not every approach is acceptable or deemed beneficial. Ordinary rulers, in contrast, justify using any method, even those contrary to Islam, for the sake of preserving their own power. In terms of governance, the people’s preferences and tastes are fundamental, and Islam provides a specific approach to governance suited to each time and society. Thus, religious governance does not offer a single, one-size-fits-all solution for all peoples and eras.

Indeed, it is true that the prophets and religions have conveyed principles and foundations, but the application and interpretation of these principles are determined by the people of each era, who, based on their psychological traits and characteristics, set the context for these rulings. Human society changes across different periods, and what may be considered a high or noble issue in one age (like the martyrs of the Iranian revolution in the time of Imam Khomeini) may become corrupted or deteriorated in another. The subject of rulings changes, but the principles of the rulings remain constant until the Day of Judgment.

For example, a society might have a specific issue, such as a people who once practiced idol worship, where manufacturing idols would be prohibited because the dolls would no longer be considered toys but rather idols. However, in a monotheistic society, doll-making would not have such a restriction. The subject changes, but the essence of the ruling remains the same.

A further example is that one of our esteemed professors, a philosopher, would stand among a group of people and perform his prayers. Some objected, claiming that he was facing another person, which made the prayer in such a context disliked (makruh). The philosopher argued that by imagining a hypothetical line as an obstacle, the dislike would be alleviated. This concept would work for him as a philosopher but not for a simple believer, as it is rooted in intellectual reasoning rather than traditional views. This example shows the precision of the philosophy of jurisprudence, which recognizes the specific context in which a ruling applies and avoids personal interpretations or innovations in religious teachings.

Ultimately, the Qur’an is the book of all knowledge and thought, containing the foundations of all sciences. It is the source of all human knowledge, providing us with both scientific and spiritual guidance. The knowledge and insights offered by the Qur’an serve humanity in ways both seen and unseen, as evidenced by various forms of scientific and spiritual guidance revealed through the prophets. As such, religious science incorporates teachings related to various forms of knowledge, including the crafting of ships or the use of wind energy, which were revealed through divine inspiration. The aim of the prophets, however, was never to focus solely on science but rather to guide society towards spiritual and moral improvement, which could sometimes involve knowledge or governance.

Religious teachings were often grounded in the needs and necessities of the time. For instance, the Book of Tawhid was written in response to doubts raised by someone named Ibn Abi al-Awjā, and the words of Imam Reza (AS) during debates with scholars of other religions were tailored to specific circumstances. These discussions often involved practical matters like how to eat or engage in daily life, which were closely related to the scientific knowledge of the time. Religious teachings were not purely theoretical but reflected the intellectual and cultural conditions of the society they were delivered to.

Moreover, it must be noted that the scientific knowledge shared by the prophets was often based on the realities and accepted facts of their time, rather than on absolute truth. The teachings were designed to meet the society’s level of understanding and its needs. For example, the actions and teachings of the imams and the prophets were always in alignment with the intellectual capacity of their society. The imams adapted their teachings depending on the audience’s intellect and social status. They would give profound teachings to scholars and simpler explanations to ordinary people. The core of their message, however, was always aligned with the truth and divine wisdom.

It should also be understood that while the prophets and the imams did not aim to advance scientific knowledge or pursue power, they sought to guide society. However, guidance might sometimes necessitate the development of knowledge or governance. Unlike many scholars who present knowledge without considering the welfare of society or rulers who may take any action to preserve or expand their power, the prophets maintained a people-centered approach to leadership. This distinction is crucial in understanding the difference between divine and worldly leadership. The Qur’an’s teachings on issues like war, justice, and retribution serve to manage societal structures, but they also emphasize the higher goal of spiritual guidance and the moral education of the people.

In fact, Islam has provided a much more comprehensive and precise approach to governance, politics, and societal management than secular rulers or political thinkers have, addressing all human needs and conflicts across time. This is why when we say that religion has a guiding purpose, it does not mean that it ignores science, politics, or governance. On the contrary, guidance naturally involves science, knowledge, power, and management, and there is no contradiction between science and religion, as both ultimately lead to the truth. If there is any conflict, it is either because the so-called science is not true or the so-called religious knowledge is not rooted in true religion.

It must also be recognized that personal desires, ambitions, and egos often cloud the judgment of both religious scholars and scientists, leading them to misuse their positions for personal gain or political agendas. This has often led to the mockery and ridicule of true scholars, who have been exploited by those in power. However, in the end, it is the true path of divine wisdom that will prevail.

Today, the clergy cannot remain indifferent to the scientific and cultural issues facing society. It is an obligation to engage with the people and defend our cultural and Islamic identity with determination. This is a responsibility we must all take on, whether through academic work, cultural activities, or public service. Unfortunately, some authorities take actions that hinder the scientific and intellectual progress of scholars, labelling them as political, which is damaging to the progress of society.

In the end, we should remind the people: being a Muslim is a noble identity, and any imperfections or flaws seen are the result of human actions, not the religion itself. We continue to work day and night, despite facing many challenges and physical strain, because we believe that accurately conveying the teachings of Islam, untainted by political agendas or personal desires, is a task only a few can undertake.

People’s Coordination Power

Once, during a trip to the outskirts of Mashhad for a summer retreat, I met a good scholar who lived in those areas and taught the Holy Quran. He said, “I have employed various methods and tried many different approaches, but the children never attend my lessons.” I asked, “Is the problem with the children, or do you lack the skills to engage them?” He replied, “I have completed three training courses in Quranic education and have considerable experience in this field.” I said, “In my opinion, you lack the necessary skills. Leave this task to me, and you will see the problem resolved.” The children were aged between six and twelve. The scholar explained that he could not tolerate the children’s mischievousness. I then asked, “What methods do you employ to control them?” I began my work by announcing, “Dear children! I plan to establish a government in the mosque, which requires a king, a minister, soldiers, and a jailer.” The children were intrigued by these words and came to the mosque to witness the mock government. The mosque became lively with their presence. I told them, “Consider this mosque as your home and the centre of your government. Do whatever you like.” This approach allowed me to become friendly and close to them. I played with them and even organised role-play activities. For example, I would say, “You are the owner of that column in the mosque and must defend it.” I asked them to be present at the mosque at five in the morning for continued lessons. Parents later reported that the children could not sleep at night, so excited were they to attend the class the next day. They would say, “We must be on time at the mosque; otherwise, our government will fall.” I taught them the Quran in a creative manner using these methods. Every morning, we had morning exercise and ran in the alleyways. I told the scholar, “Your teaching methods need to be attractive. Children do not accept dry lessons without play or visualization. Such content holds no appeal for them.” During the lessons, parents gathered outside the mosque, wondering what special thing I was doing that attracted their children so. I would respond, “I behave like a child with them. In one sense, I am like them, but in another sense, I am not.” This scholar was the brother of a martyr. Upon seeing these events, he said, “Haj-Agha! We are not effective in our preaching.” I replied, “You are suited for religious teaching, but you need to learn creative and unique methods.” I told him that the fault lay with him and not the children. In any case, in order to bring children to the mosque, there needs to be attraction—coercion and force are ineffective. The point is that such methods are both effective and result-oriented. Furthermore, people are not all on the same level, and even within a classroom, students have differences. However, it is possible to create a sense of proximity and coordination between people. This is because, ultimately, we work with a community of people, and when planning for the future, this must be taken into account. Today, governments utilise human gatherings and bring people together in one place to carry out tasks. In cultural work, a similar approach must be employed, but which systems and management strategies are most effective to avoid friction and depletion between individuals and ensure a balance is maintained?

Sometimes, I need the presence of the best professors in the country. There are occasions when I need their expertise, but it is not possible to contact them all the time as it would cause inconvenience to them. Moreover, I do not wish to have personal or private sessions with them. I intended to bring together a few prominent and distinguished individuals because they were well-suited for collaboration. When I was in Kermanshah, I invited thirty Sufi groups and organised a gathering. The leaders of these Sufi groups, who were dedicated to chanting, became so close to me and trusted me that at times, they sought guidance from me. I managed to create unity among these thirty groups, and I told them, “If you have disagreements, do not bring them before the community; resolve them amongst yourselves. If you have any issues regarding mysticism, solve them privately.” These Sufi members would gather, all of them having long beards, yet they became flexible and would easily accept my words. They asked me for spiritual guidance because I became close to them and helped them recognise themselves better. They were lost in their own mysticism and had forgotten themselves, but after our conversations, they regained clarity, understood that they were ordinary people, and thus became calm, sincere, and aligned with me.

The Kite

Flying a kite initially is a difficult task. The kite may not rise and may fall to the ground or veer off course. When I was a child, I would often play with kites. I would go to the roof of our house, which was quite high, and fly my kite. Once, while traveling to the north of the country, I sat by the seaside, watching the children playing with their kites. I observed their actions and paid close attention. Some were skilled at flying their kites, while others were less careful. Getting a kite into the air is a challenging task at first. The kite may rise but then suddenly fall or deviate from its course. If the kite is poorly made, or the string is not properly adjusted, the task becomes even harder. However, once the kite is in the air, you no longer need to exert much effort, except to control it by pulling the string. I remember that sometimes the children would keep their kite in the sky for two or three days, controlling it with the string. Cultural and educational work is much the same. If we can successfully launch the cultural ‘kite’ into the air, it will eventually advance on its own. The initial stage of cultural work is very difficult, but with time, patience, and effort, progress becomes self-sustaining.

While in the north, I spent a long time sitting by the beach, mesmerised by the waves of the sea. Water, though the softest and gentlest substance, possesses a power greater than that of a lion or dragon. Its roar and the fierce grip of water

Instructor-Centered Approach in the Training of Intelligence Personnel

May God bless Mr. Lajevardi. In the early days of the Revolution, he once told me, “For our intelligence personnel, we hold a condensed course consisting of several hundred hours of ideological lessons to prepare them for intelligence work and ensure they have piety and commitment. However, in the middle of their missions, we often find that they are easily bought or deceived by a beautiful woman, causing operations to face significant issues or be completely compromised.” I replied, “Your mistake lies in your quantitative approach to training. Education should be instructor-centered, with a focus on the quality of the instructor. Intelligence personnel should be taught by a truly scholarly and devout individual. Even if they lack divine authority, they must possess a noble and spiritual nature. You may accept personnel with doctoral degrees, but their operational effectiveness is not solely reliant on their academic achievements or scores. Knowledge and education alone cannot compete with power, charm, or wealth. Faith, belief, and piety are what truly matter, and here, the character and identity of the instructor play a critical role. If an individual does not have a spiritually oriented and legitimate instructor, even after hundreds of hours of ideological education, they will fail. In these matters, an instructor-centered approach is essential. A person who has a worthy teacher, even if they read newspapers in their presence, will be far more effective than a highly skilled scholar who studies the Quran under a weak and unqualified teacher. Those who lack an instructor will achieve nothing. Even in spiritual matters, when assessing a seeker’s position and level, we consider who their teacher was, as their credibility is tied to that of their instructor.”

Attention to Spiritual Matters in Engineering

In city management and architectural engineering, it is crucial to consider what should be placed where and how, in order to preserve the spiritual integrity of the space. Furthermore, these management decisions and institutions should be entrusted to individuals who have not severed their ties with the world of spirituality, despite being in a materialistic and Westernized environment. These matters should be handled by comprehensive specialists who can oversee the permits granted with thoroughness and wisdom. For example, it used to be the case that when a pilgrim arrived from Isfahan to Qom, they would be greeted at the city’s entrance by a stable and a racetrack, which emitted a very unpleasant odor. Anyone who is about to enter a sacred city should be greeted by the scent of rosewater, not the smell of animal waste.

Previously, restrooms were even placed at the entrances of the shrine, so that visitors to the holy site would be confronted with filth and unpleasant smells. Of course, this has changed now. In Islamic architecture, spiritual matters are taken into account, and efforts are made to place hidden aspects of the building where they remain unseen. I used to point out such criticisms to the custodians of the shrine and the relevant authorities during my lectures.

Weak Workers

After the victory of the Revolution, I was once in charge of managing Kish Island. The island’s Imam Jom’eh invited me and gave me half of his house for me and my family, while he and his family lived in the other half. It was during Ramadan, and there were workers busy with tasks at the house. I struck up a conversation with them and formed a friendly rapport. I asked if they had had breakfast, to which they replied, “We are Muslims and fasting.” I replied, “Sometimes not fasting is part of being a Muslim.” I realized that they were being polite and hiding the fact that they weren’t fasting. They were working in the hot sun under the intense southern heat and simply couldn’t continue fasting. On the other hand, they were afraid and didn’t want to admit their hunger. I befriended them and made them happy and lively. Their not fasting was also an expression of religious piety, and there was no need for them to remain hungry. Every day, I would prepare a large container of top-quality tea and take it to them. I also arranged for food from the Revolutionary Committee to be delivered to them, which I personally handed out. Although it was Ramadan, I would sit with them while they ate. As a result of this behavior, they became very fond of me and asked if I could bring some food for their families, as they didn’t have anything to eat. I requested more food from the committee and gave it to them. Despite this, they worked passionately and with affection. The Imam Jom’eh, seeing our friendly relationship, asked me how I managed to connect with the workers. I told him that clergymen should adopt such an approach when interacting with people. He would pray behind me for Fajr, but I would lead him in prayer at the mosque, as his position had to be respected. I would say to him that a clergyman must be approachable so that the people accept him. Sometimes, some people behave with arrogance towards the public. Arrogance should be reserved for the powerful, not for simple and humble workers. One should not be cold and distant like the dogmatic and cruel individuals who attribute negative traits to kindness and affection.

Apostasy of Communism

In the early days of the Revolution, a person responsible for cultural affairs in a town dismissed three hundred teachers, both men and women, because they were believed to be communists and hypocrites. When I heard this news, I asked him about his reasoning. He said these individuals lacked the proper moral, intellectual, and cultural standards. I replied, “Your intellectual assessment might be flawed. I suggest I test and examine these individuals myself.” I organized a class and invited them to attend. It was summer, and the classroom was very hot. I suggested that we move the class outdoors to the school yard. The next day, we went to a garden, and the class turned into a picnic. There was a girl in the class who spoke ill of Imam Khomeini. This was after the events where the Mojahedin had caused turmoil in the country. This girl would turn off the television whenever it showed Imam Khomeini’s image. Her husband confided in me that his wife held this opinion and he was confused, contemplating divorce. Some of the men had even labeled her as an infidel. I spoke with her and asked why she turned off the television. She said, “I don’t like the face of Imam Khomeini.” I replied, “Actually, Imam Khomeini is very handsome and attractive.” Through our conversation, I learned that the reason for her hatred was that her brother had been killed during the confrontations caused by the Mojahedin, and she blamed the Imam for it. I asked her, “Did Imam Khomeini kill your brother?” She answered, “No, it was some of the Revolutionary Guards who killed him.” I said, “So, you think the Revolutionary Guards are bad people?” I explained that the young men around me were all Revolutionary Guards. “The young men who go to the front and sacrifice their lives so that you and I can live in peace, are all Revolutionary Guards. They are the ones who are brave and worthy of admiration, not murderers.” In the end, she said, “I have no problem with Imam Khomeini, I oppose murderers.” I replied, “Who are the murderers? I also detest murderers and believe they should be found and punished.”

Before the Revolution, Communists were very active, especially in academic circles. I once encountered a Communist who had studied clerical and theological subjects and was teaching at the university. He was a leader of the Communist movement. I was told that he had misled many students. I said I would engage in a scientific debate with him in front of students and university professors. During our first session, when he asked me questions, his students laughed at me. They thought he was so important and viewed me as just a cleric, mocking my attempts to discuss science. At that time, the place and society held the view that a cleric couldn’t be knowledgeable in academic matters, and it was considered laughable that I would try to engage in such discussions. I expressed an opinion that, scientifically, we may even have a speed greater than light. The scientific community considers the speed of light to be the fastest, but I argued that the movement of the soul is so swift that it can surpass light and still not be destroyed. Compared to it, the speed of light is like that of a bicycle or cart. I also predicted that in a thousand years, we will no longer see knives, scissors, or needles in surgical hospitals, as the Quran has already alluded to future sciences. Current hospitals have more sharp tools than the ancient Romans. I said, “If in five hundred years science proves what I am saying, you should celebrate for the clergymen who held such a theory in the afterlife.” In the beginning, the Communist leader asked questions, and I answered them with several of my own questions. As the session went on, no one laughed anymore, and everyone focused on the scientific discussion. We continued having debates, discussing the popular topics of that time.

The People’s Religion and the Hell-Making, Ritualistic, and Oppressive Religion

I have known many scholars of the past closely and am well familiar with their attitudes. I believe that we are stronger than them in terms of belief; we could answer religious questions in the grave and the afterlife without any difficulty. But what did the jurists of the past, from the time of the occultation until now, possess? First, there was no competition among them regarding knowledge and authority. The most they concerned themselves with was, for example, the issue of whether their water pipe was served first. There was a man named Mirza Abol-Fazl, who was tall and from Qom. He used to shout out the names of scholars and ask people to send blessings upon them when they entered a gathering. He received money for this, and the more money someone gave him, the more titles he would assign to them. This was also the case with serving water pipes, as the one who spent more money got priority. Nowadays, Mirza Abol-Fazl has turned into the media magnates and digital emperors of virtual islands.

During the early days of the Revolution, when the seminaries were closed, I was involved in various activities. I had good relations with about forty to fifty clerics, and practically everyone in the town knew me. I was highly respected and had good rapport with them. I set a time for the clerics to dedicate to studying, as I wanted our student life to not be wasted in these circumstances. I would also assign them to work in government offices. I told them to approach their tasks with the aim of bringing heaven to the people and to focus on solving their problems, not on punishment or hell. I said that hell is irrelevant, and our task is to assist people and address their issues. I would visit these offices, spend half an hour, and address people’s concerns. I recall once visiting the Revolutionary Committee with some opium in hand, which I gave to the addicts there so they could feel better. I asked them not to mention this, although everyone knew about it. They were fond of me, and when I would arrive, they would excitedly ask if I had come yet. They had grown fond of me due to my kindness and compassion, and my reputation among them was positive. I asked other clerics to adopt this approach when interacting with the public. Religion should be practiced with such an approach, fostering a divine presence in society, and the practice of religion should be based on kindness, not force, oppression, or arrogance.

I recall a woman who had been arrested for corruption. She asked the officers to bring her young child to her, as she was worried that he would be frightened alone. The officers refused. She confided in me, complaining about their lack of respect for privacy and her child’s safety. I asked her to find someone to guarantee her return and allow her child to join her, but she didn’t know anyone. Eventually, I personally became her guarantor. Some clerics laughed, suggesting the woman wouldn’t return to the committee, but she did, bringing her child along, and she told me that she had kept her promise to honor my guarantee. She explained that her actions were due to her lack of a husband, financial hardship, and vulnerability. Eventually, I arranged for her marriage and resolved her situation. This is the reality of society—our goal is to assist people and lift them from their struggles.

It is often said that individuals commit crimes and engage in delinquency under extreme conditions of distress. However, some individuals talk about enforcing the true essence of religion, and rather than pursuing a truly spiritual approach, they desire a dictatorial form of religion that aligns with their authoritarian tendencies. Such statements are mere rhetoric and contribute neither to the welfare of the people nor to the ultimate well-being of those who make such claims. The challenges faced by human beings must be carefully analyzed and addressed.

If a father, who is the head of the family and has financial means, nonetheless resorts to crime and wrongdoing, in such a scenario, you have the right to rebuke, reprimand, and punish him. However, sin and error in times of poverty, misfortune, and distress are natural and understandable. Similarly, a responsible person who lacks the means to help the poor and alleviate their needs does not have the right to reprimand or punish the helpless. In summary, my position at the time, based on a decree from the late Imam, was equal to the position of an Imam Jummah and Shariah ruler, a status surpassing that of a governor. I too managed with nobility and issued directives.

I recall that at that time, Mr. Ghafouri-Fard was the governor of Khorasan, and Mr. Tabasi had cautioned all officials in Khorasan not to interfere in the affairs of Haj Agha Nukunam. If someone’s personal matter related to any of the departments that fell under my jurisdiction, it would be swiftly dealt with, stating that we do not interfere with his work and that they should speak with him directly. We had promised him that we would not interfere in his affairs.

Some of the hypocrites had infiltrated the Jihad organisation and were causing significant corruption, deceiving young girls. No institution or authority had the power to confront them. They had even extended their influence to rural areas, where they initiated the practice of nepotism, helping their relatives and acquaintances. I remember a large portrait of Ayatollah Khomeini was displayed on the building of the Jihad. I instructed that the portrait be removed and that all personnel be arrested. I ordered that if they resisted or attempted to use weapons, they should be dealt with accordingly.

Upon hearing of this, they contacted Mr. Tabasi, stating that they were being threatened with execution. Mr. Tabasi replied that we had pledged not to interfere with their affairs. They requested half an hour to surrender, which I agreed to. In the end, the authorities arrested all of them and took them to prison. I declared that in the Islamic Republic of Iran, no one would have the power to bully or oppress others.

One of the Friday Prayer leaders, who was also a relative of mine, called to inform me that a sum of five hundred tomans had been taken from the hypocrites. At that time, five hundred tomans was a considerable amount. He asked me to kindly return the money to them. I responded that the money should be returned immediately, and the individual involved should be dismissed. I stated that I was responsible for this matter and that I understood the concepts of lawful and unlawful. I would not be answerable to Ayatollah Khomeini, but rather to God on the Day of Judgment. This incident stirred some controversy. The late Beheshti referred to me as the “Terrible Sheikh” for closing down the Jihad organisation, and the Kayhan newspaper, which was the mouthpiece of the Jihadis, published a critique, calling me the “King of Khorasan.”

Despite their claims, I was working side by side with the Revolutionary Guards, confronting the hypocrites, while they, like kings, sat at home and issued orders. Some even labelled me a terrorist, even though I was actively fighting against murderers and those violating the sanctity of people’s homes. I was standing firm against a supposedly charitable institution, the Jihad-e-Sazandegi, where the officials were exploiting vulnerable youth for immoral purposes.

The late Beheshti, may God have mercy on him, praised me for my courage in confronting the hypocrites. However, it should be noted that Beheshti, like others, had a moderate level of religious scholarship. He had distanced himself from traditional religious studies and embraced modern issues, much like the late Motahhari, Bahonar, and Mofatteh, who had moved towards universities and even worked as school teachers. They believed that the religious institutions were not yielding results. However, the root of Islam lies in the seminary, and if this root is not properly nurtured, the efforts in other fields will not bear meaningful fruit.

It was Imam Khomeini who revived figures like Beheshti and gave hope to those who had become disillusioned. I made it clear to them that any funds wasted or misused in this matter should be returned. I also made it clear that I was personally responsible for this issue and that Ayatollah Khomeini had no involvement in these matters. In those days, women would donate their jewelry for the revolution, and I emphasized that the use of these resources was solely my responsibility. I reminded them that I would be held accountable for it on the Day of Judgment.

Later, it became apparent that the members of this Jihad organisation were, in fact, members of the Mojahedin-e-Khalq and the hypocrites. We built a case against them, and once their actions were exposed, we arrested many of them. I instructed an investigation into their crimes and ensured that justice would be served. After thorough investigation, I decided to grant them amnesty, reasoning that the revolution was still in its infancy and that we were not seeking conflict. I made it clear that, although they had made mistakes, I understood their youth and naivety during that turbulent time. I chose not to imprison them and instead gave them a chance for redemption.

There were times when I was threatened with death, but I continued to speak at Friday prayers and address such matters. At that time, I boldly said that no one had the courage or ability to kill me. Those who opposed me, I stated, were too weak and insignificant to carry out such an act. I would challenge them, daring them to try. I even joked that anyone seeking to kill me would have to be a baseborn child of deceit, someone who hadn’t even been born at that point in time.

In fact, my approach to governance was always guided by the principle of not oppressing the weak and vulnerable. Islam calls for justice, especially against the powerful and arrogant. However, it is disappointing to see that some individuals, once they gain power, turn against the weak, even prosecuting them in the name of protecting the system, while showing respect to the powerful.

I remember, during my time of influence, when I lived in a modest house in the Khorasan region, I had all the power and resources, yet my home was small, and our dinner was humble. We were eating a simple omelette when a woman and her children arrived at my house, distressed because their father had been arrested with five kilos of opium. I immediately arranged for the prisoner to be brought to my house so that we could share the meal together. The man admitted to his crime, but I offered him a new job, encouraging him to leave his criminal activities behind.

The dissemination of religious knowledge in society should not be disconnected from the process of deriving rulings; otherwise, a religious scholar may offer opinions and generate ideas, but without any tangible outcome. These issues hold the status of real propositions; they are neither abstract nor external. Our initial reflection and strategy is to create an environment where the people can understand and grasp religious teachings and knowledge. Therefore, in situations of conflict and division, our goal is to promote peace and friendship among people, acknowledging that the conditions for applying certain religious laws and instructions may not exist. In fact, under such circumstances, understanding and applying Islam are not of central importance, and we must focus on addressing the issues of today.

When I was in Kish during Ramadan, the Communists had climbed over the wall of the Imam Jumu’ah’s house and threatened him with death unless he left Kish. His wife came to me, crying and pleading for help, asking, “Haj Agha! Please do something, for they have threatened to kill the descendant of the Prophet!” To solve this issue, I spent four or five days spreading awareness, gathering large crowds. During the nights of Ramadan, I held classes in the mosque teaching Marxism and the Capitalist system from both the economic and Communist perspectives. Supporters of Communism also attended. After ten days, they admitted that the lessons were futile, acknowledging that these theories were entirely wrong. I continued these classes until the end of the blessed month of Ramadan. I also explained that in Islamic law, when it comes to the burial of the deceased, it is prescribed to place a stick under their armpits. If this ruling cannot substantiate the truth of Islam, then it is merely an embellishment, and the ruling itself is false. Indeed, this principle is my approach to Islamic jurisprudence: if an Islamic ruling cannot prove the essence of Islam, then it is merely an adornment and a lie. In this context, the subject of the ruling must be thoroughly understood, and scientific, up-to-date, and equipped laboratories are needed to assess it. One method of falsification is based on this law. There is also a harsh term used in hadith, “fadribuhoo ‘ala al-jidar” (strike it against the wall) in relation to falsehoods. One jurist made a wise observation in this regard, stating that the essence of a hadith is substantiated by its narrators, though sometimes the narrators are recognized by their texts. In other words, when the text is established by the narrators, the narrators themselves can also be established by their texts. This reflection on interdependence is a crucial point.

In any case, in Kish Island, Mahshahr, Mashhad, Bojnord, and other cities, our relationship with the people was one of utmost sincerity, affection, and love. The environment was one of friendship, kindness, and mutual trust. The people loved us dearly: from Communists to Muslims, and from the wealthy to the workers. Describing and reflecting on that atmosphere is incredibly sweet. I even had the opportunity to declare independence and form an independent government. Some suggested that I declare independence, saying, “Haj Agha, we are no weaker or more incapable than the people of Dubai and Kuwait. You should declare independence, and military bases and intelligence systems will support you.” I responded by telling them they did not truly know Imam Khomeini, that he was a noble and kind-hearted person, and I would explain this to them. I said, “You have not encountered Imam Khomeini or met him closely, so trust me on this matter.” We used to give financial aid and gifts to the people, but we never attributed these to ourselves; instead, we said that these were donations from Imam Khomeini. In our interactions with the people, we made no distinction between Sunnis and Shi’as and always visited the Sunnis as well. There was a special bond of sincerity between us and the people.

On one occasion, a Communist wrote me a letter expressing doubt about my intentions. In the letter, he sarcastically wrote, “I hope you didn’t come to this area to beg or eat the people’s rights. May your intentions be pure and for the sake of closeness to God.” He was repeating the types of phrases that some clerics say during their sermons. When I ascended the pulpit to give a sermon, I said, “O people! Praise be to God, I have received a letter full of good advice and wishes. I will pray for the writer, and I must say that this letter contains better advice than anything I have ever spoken on the pulpit.” I proceeded to read the letter aloud, line by line, while expressing my admiration for the writer’s piety and noble character. I concluded my sermon with a prayer that God would grant us the ability to act on this advice. The next day, the writer and his wife came to see me. They admitted that they were no longer Communists but had chosen the religion that I had been defining and explaining. They shared their story with me: “Before the revolution, we were Muslims, but after the revolution, we became Communists. When the revolution succeeded, the country was in chaos. My wife and I, both doctors, decided to help people and advance the cause of the revolution. We had some money, so we bought some medicine and went to the villages to distribute it for free. People became suspicious and spread rumors that we were Communists, which is why we didn’t take money for the medicine. As a result, they expelled us from the village. We thought that Communists give away free goods and don’t take money for them, so being a Communist seemed like a good thing. Therefore, we abandoned Islam and became Communists. But now, we have returned to Islam.” They became highly active, organizing discussions and debates about Communism. They stayed up late at night, debating even when they had no time to eat. I participated in some of these debates, highlighting the flaws in their arguments.

In conclusion, understanding religion and true piety is difficult; otherwise, the Khawarij would not have emerged. A person must immerse themselves in religion and be consumed by devotion to God to truly understand this path and practice it.

During my time on Kish Island, the temperature sometimes reached 50 to 60 degrees Celsius. I lived for a while in the house of the city’s Imam Jumu’ah, which was a thousand square meters in size. The house had two or three doors, two of which were in use, and one was always locked. Every day, I would rest behind one of the doors, observing how the dogs would sit curled up in the heat. I would often wonder how these dogs could endure the intense heat. My goal was to always be ready to open the door quickly if someone knocked, so they would not have to wait in the heat. Moreover, I never created a barrier between myself and the people.

The concept of being “down-to-earth” or “people-oriented” implies direct and genuine communication with ordinary people, without formalities. I personally strive to be in touch with people directly, and I try to answer their calls myself. Sometimes the volume of calls becomes so overwhelming that anyone else in my position would likely feel on the verge of collapse. I, too, become fatigued. Sometimes people even call in the middle of the night—when my energy is depleted and there are still countless unfinished tasks to complete before dawn. Some are kind in their interactions, while others are experiencing personal turmoil, such as family disputes, and cry for help. Some struggle with extreme mental health issues, others believe they are possessed, and yet others are involved in spiritual crises, each dealing with their own unique problems. Some people even refuse to tolerate a brief waiting period. On the other hand, I often remind myself that if I turn off my phone, I might miss preventing a calamity, and on the Day of Judgement, I could be held accountable for not answering a call. A person’s nerves are easily agitated, and it can become overwhelming.

My writing tasks also feel like an obligation that must be fulfilled. Right now, I have five pamphlets in my bag that I need to study before morning. My days are filled with lessons and duties, yet I must remain people-oriented, bearing the hardships and disturbances they bring. Occasionally, I put my phone away for a short while to recharge, but I refuse to let those who try to reach me feel that I am too tired to assist them.

In the past, when there were no students in my office, I would personally perform people’s prayer divinations (Istikhara). Sometimes, I would even answer calls while showering, wiping the soapy water from my hands to avoid leaving anyone waiting. Thankfully, my friends later set up a separate line for prayer divinations and dream interpretations, which alleviated my burden. However, it didn’t entirely resolve the issue. Some people, aware that I am often awake at night, would disregard my need for rest, calling me as late as three in the morning to ask about a dream they had just had. Eventually, I decided that I would not answer calls from people I knew between midnight and 6 AM.

I try to keep my personal struggles hidden, not wanting anyone to notice them. Some days are filled with misfortunes. Just today, for example, the glass jar I use to store seeds for my canaries fell and shattered. At the same time, the electricity on the upper floor short-circuited, and the fuse blew. Then, in my office, a scheduling conflict occurred when two meetings I had set for 6:30 PM overlapped, which was unintentional. One group cancelled, but another group arrived nonetheless. Despite these challenges, I remind myself that they do not justify becoming angry or irritated.

Occasionally, certain situations make me respond with irritation. For instance, during a lesson, one of my students, Mr. Abbasi, raised an irrelevant issue about a prayer-related document, which had no bearing on the subject at hand. If I responded curtly, it was because he is one of my students, and I care for him. I know that he would not take offense at such a response. However, my impatience with him is motivated by affection, and not out of malice.

Once, Mr. Boroujerdi remarked that while I don’t give him money, I often act curtly towards him, and asked how he should feel. I responded, “Well, go ahead, leave.” He said, “Where would we go? Our hearts are here.” I replied, “Then don’t go.” My occasional sharpness with close friends is borne out of friendship, not a desire to be rude. With the public, I am never harsh.

Sometimes, I witness extraordinary events that make me lose my temper. May God bless the late martyr Chaman, who, after Ayatollah Khomeini, was one of the most sincere, principled, and knowledgeable figures I have encountered in the country. If I had to choose one person from the revolutionary leaders, it would be him. During the Kurdish conflict, for instance, he once slapped a Revolutionary Guard officer in the face to maintain control of a military base. Although such an act may seem harsh, it was necessary to preserve the area, and later, its significance became clear. A person like Martyr Chaman, who was deeply spiritual and compassionate, had to make difficult decisions, such as disregarding the sanctity of an individual to protect a strategic region. This action, while seemingly harsh, was ultimately done for the greater good.

We, too, face a state of emergency, with our security often jeopardised, and periodic raids lead to the loss of essential resources and information. The last time some of our files were taken, they had erased critical research and personal data, which caused significant losses. Living in such an unstable and politically compromised environment, we must perform our scholarly duties without the luxury of sincerity and idealism, as others would expect.

At times, when calamities appear imminent, I have the strong sense that something bad is about to happen. For example, while driving to Mashhad a few years ago, I suddenly had a strong feeling near Park Mellat that I needed to park the car and make sure everyone stayed close. I fell asleep briefly, and upon waking, I discovered that one of my companions, Javad, had gone across the street to buy something. He was struck by a van, and his body was severely injured. I rushed him to the hospital, and miraculously, the doctors were able to save him.

In these situations, I do not simply accept the calamity; I act swiftly to prevent it, and if the outcome is beyond my control, I accept it with submission. In my interactions with people, it is crucial to avoid arrogance and elitism, and to maintain a spirit of camaraderie and kindness. Being “people-oriented” with sincerity allows a scholar to remain humble, and on the Day of Judgement, one can confidently say that they worked for the sake of God, assisting others without any selfish motivation. This is the true essence of humility in dealing with people.

Being “people-oriented” involves more than just actions; it requires a particular behaviour—one that is ethical, courteous, free from aggression, anger, or quarrels. It means being easygoing, letting go of people’s faults, and not holding grudges. It is about being human, so that people can recognise you as a fellow human, not as someone distanced by the image of an authoritative religious figure.

I consider myself one of the people. I am grateful for their kindness. For example, when I needed some repairs in my building, I hired a blacksmith who worked for half the usual rate, and over time, we became close friends. He sees me as a friend and believes that I treat him as a brother. If he encounters a problem, he knows he can turn to me for help. Today, he brought me a large box of apples, probably around 20 kilograms. To me, these apples are priceless because they represent his sincere friendship. I have been reflecting on how to repay him for his kindness, but I know there is no way to truly repay such a gesture.

Being “people-oriented” means being humble and grounded, embodying the form and nature of the people. It is about not being aloof or detached. It means understanding people’s lives and challenges, not taking oneself too seriously, and keeping a spirit of cooperation and compassion.

A scholar, particularly a religious one, must be “people-oriented.” To achieve this, one must understand the social realities of life. Before the revolution, I lived in Ahvaz, where there was a scholar whom I highly respected. I would often direct students in that region to follow him. However, one of my students encountered him in the street and was disillusioned when he saw him spitting on the pavement. He asked how I could recommend someone who behaved like that. I struggled to justify this behaviour. It is crucial for religious leaders to be mindful of their actions, as even minor lapses in behaviour can undermine their ability to connect with the people they serve.

Finally, a true “people-oriented” person does not elevate themselves above others. They remain grounded and relatable, fostering a relationship with others based on mutual respect and understanding. They avoid making others feel inferior, no matter their position or social standing. This is the essence of being truly “people-oriented.”

To be “one of the people” means to walk as they walk and visit the same places they visit. It implies that no one should think that the divine kingdom is solely for a specific few. However, someone who is not humble, who becomes weighed down by their own knowledge, behaves worse than a woman walking with nine months of pregnancy. Knowledge should bring lightness and freedom. Sometimes, this weightiness manifests in terms like “the least,” “the perishing,” or “the servant,” which clearly express a hidden arrogance akin to that of Pharaoh. This arrogance, which can affect even the humblest individuals, causes some to become sensitive and touchy, reacting to the slightest word or glance. These individuals cannot coexist harmoniously with others, let alone strive to be “one of the people.” Those who are humble yet prideful face others with arrogance and oppression, trying to mask their own inferiority. In contrast, they project their inner struggles onto others, attributing to them the problems they themselves face, hoping to tarnish others’ reputations and elevate themselves. Such individuals, afflicted by pride, narcissism, and other psychological issues, can never truly become one with the people and must first rid themselves of these psychological flaws.

A person who is not one of the people even has difficulties with their own family. Personally, even amidst the chaos of my own relatives, I integrate with them, encouraging them when they become excessively loud, without ever indulging in gossip. I neither narrate hadiths for them nor give them advice. I become as young as the youngest among them, as old as the oldest, and act naturally without pretense. This is what true naturalness entails. I do this sincerely, not out of hypocrisy or theatricality. I refer to this state of conduct as the “power of transformation.” This ability allows a person to blend into any group and behave as they do. I recall an example of someone pretending to be something they are not. Pretending and imitating others is the antithesis of being “one of the people.” We refer to a person who is genuinely “one of the people” as truly noble, someone who is authentically kind, calm, and gracious, able to bond with others in a heartfelt manner—this is not playacting.

When I was a child, a wealthy merchant who wished to appear as a dervish brought food to a group of poor dervishes at a cemetery. He sat with them, but I watched him from behind, noticing that, despite his attempts to appear humble by wearing a cloak and a hat, and even adorning himself with rings, he was still a merchant and not a true dervish. He boasted to these dervishes about his wealth and position, flaunting it despite his attire. This behavior is a form of illness, not the humility of a true “one of the people.” I deeply disliked this attitude. To fake being humble or poor for show turns a person into a shallow caricature, and this is the opposite of being genuinely one with the people. A person who is truly humble and grounded doesn’t display a specific title or label—they blend in naturally, unpretentiously.

A truly humble person doesn’t parade a specific label, such as one of religious observance, in public. Just as a person who holds an academic qualification shouldn’t impose it upon others in casual settings, someone who is genuinely one with the people blends in with others without being ostentatious. For example, someone who holds themselves apart by carrying prayer beads and reciting prayers loudly is not one of the people. Similarly, the act of scrutinizing others’ personal lives or invading their privacy is a form of excess and is not a natural part of human interaction. Those who engage in unnecessary inquiries into others’ affairs act out of a weak will and a lack of self-control. People who are highly intelligent but lack discipline and self-restraint often become more prone to such intrusive behavior.

There is an example from my own life. After the revolution, I went out one day and saw a cleric standing in the street. He was positioned at the end of the alley, facing away from a telephone kiosk. Though I was facing the kiosk, I couldn’t see what was happening, but this man, despite being turned away, could tell exactly what was going on. I realized he was trained in intelligence work, given his unusual ability to “see” what was behind him. In intelligence training, they teach skills like this, to “sense” without direct observation.

In my writings on training intelligence agents, I emphasize that such an individual must have the power to control their will. Whatever they possess becomes an extension of their voluntary control. Such a person, properly trained, is effective and disciplined, not reckless or out of control. A trained agent possesses both sharpness and the ability to exercise restraint.

True humility also requires that a person does not meddle in others’ affairs. To inquire into personal matters without consent is a form of transgression, and this applies not only to physical actions but also to intrusive thoughts or glances. We learn in our religious tradition that even a look can be an unwarranted violation if it is not made with genuine interest, rather than intrusive curiosity. This extends to our interactions with others, including our treatment of women, where a normal, non-objectifying gaze is essential. If one evaluates someone’s appearance, especially when it’s not necessary, it turns into a form of transgression.

Furthermore, in the realm of politics, most individuals involved in Iranian politics are religious, though some may experience deviations in their thinking or beliefs. I personally maintain a balanced view of both left-wing and right-wing factions, recognizing that both groups consist of individuals who are devout and have good intentions, with a history of sacrifice and struggle. However, the left tends to be more politically astute and opportunistic, while the right tends to be more sincere and straightforward. Despite some differences in how they approach politics, both groups share a common belief in Islam and the values of the revolution. The right-wing, while sincere, is often less effective in political strategy, while the left is more adept in political maneuvering.

This ideological division is exemplified by figures such as the late Ayatollah Khomeini, who, though ideologically right-leaning, behaved in ways that could be described as politically pragmatic and even left-leaning at times. I, too, try to walk this fine line, blending the sincerity of the right with the strategic thinking of the left.

In summary, being “one of the people” requires humility, naturalness, and an absence of pretense. It means shedding labels, avoiding interference in others’ lives, and engaging with others on their terms. In the political realm, it’s about being genuine, while also understanding the larger picture and acting with wisdom.

One of the most regrettable and damaging aspects of the Muslim community has been the dominance of theologians aligned with the ruling courts over the fate of science and academic institutions. Throughout history, whenever theologians and superficial scholars gained power and authority, they spilled the innocent blood of researchers and scholars under the pretext of defending religion. If they identified someone as opposed to their beliefs, they would accuse them of heresy and various falsehoods, declaring their execution to be obligatory, and leading scholars to slaughter as though they were mere sheep. Scholars like Shaykh al-Ishraq, al-Shahid al-Awwal, al-Shahid al-Thani, and al-Shahid al-Thalith were among the holiest and most revered of their times; however, tragically, they were killed due to the ignorance and narrow-mindedness of superficial scholars. Many accounts have been passed down about the greatness and sanctity of scholars such as al-Shahid al-Awwal and al-Shahid al-Thani. In fact, who could have written a work like Lamah in this style, if not al-Shahid al-Awwal, and who could have provided a scholarly commentary on it, if not al-Shahid al-Thani? I believe the attention of Imam al-Zamana (the Imam of the Time) was directed towards such scholars, and it was through their hands that these monumental works were written. In essence, Lamah is the pinnacle of jurisprudential texts, containing the most scientifically advanced content, which attests to both the brilliance and the divine disposition of the two martyrs. Lamah should truly be considered the Qur’an of jurisprudence; although many errors and shortcomings are evident in it, I personally find this unproblematic, as it is impossible to produce knowledge without any form of critique or flaw, and the concept of scientific infallibility does not exist in the realm of scholarship.

Indeed, we have altered the structure and content of this book and have revised it, but it is important to note that the author of this work, the martyr, did not have favorable circumstances and was subject to accusation, censure, and oppression by his contemporaries. The fact that the martyr wrote this book “while in prison”—a prison where there was no bread to eat, a prison of the cruel and narrow-minded theologians—shows the divine grace he was under. The book, however, became the most scientific and significant Shi’a jurisprudential text. This book was not written by scholars in an institute with access to the best resources, but by an ordinary scholar without influence or power, who wrote it under immense hardship and with his own blood. The strength of this work comes precisely from this, and it proves the divine disposition of the martyr, whose suffering led to the flourishing of his work. It is clear that a higher hand was involved, guiding such individuals who were sanctified and blessed.

Unfortunately, the conditions of that time were such that anyone who opposed the ruling powers would quickly be accused of heresy and declared worthy of execution—without prayer or blessings! Such a pure and holy individual, after being accused, would be labeled a heretic. As a result, brilliant and scholarly figures who did not follow the mainstream path of science but rather opposed the dominant current were always filled with fear and anxiety. They were often forced to endorse the beliefs of the rulers or the armed forces of the time, or at least refrained from publicly opposing the dominant authorities, whether religious or political.

I believe the situation in the present day remains largely the same. I recall a time when some high-ranking political figures in Iran, who were in positions of power, invited me to deliver a lecture to the personnel of the Air Force. My talk focused on the truth that the management of an Islamic society should be based on “general guardianship” rather than “social justice,” a theory I elaborated on in detail. General guardianship is a higher and more superior truth than social justice, and Islam has placed its governance on this principle. I outlined the basic framework of this theory in my book The Foundations of Rights. At the same time, someone in a Friday prayer sermon was promoting the concept of social justice in an Islamic society, using his influence in the media and the military to advocate this theory. As a result, some of the audience raised objections, wondering why my view differed from the sermon speaker’s. As I mentioned, the audience consisted of those in power, and I, as a guest, did not wish to challenge the views of such a high-ranking commander. I knew that there was a significant difference between the two theories, and one could not accept both as correct, as it would have negative consequences for the country. For example, a society governed by social justice would lose its Islamic identity, as social justice aligns more with the values of non-Islamic societies, while general guardianship has no place in non-Islamic societies and is a unique privilege of the Shia faith.

In short, I thought carefully and decided not to disrupt the meeting by critiquing one of their high-ranking commanders. I thus acknowledged both theories, but stated that the theory of “general guardianship” was more in line with the true teachings of Shi’ism. It was important to acknowledge the merits of the theory, although it was clear that the circumstances at the time influenced my decision to present this viewpoint.

It is true that one must speak the truth and express it freely, but these dual positions in academic discourse serve no real benefit. It is easier to speak freely in societies where there is a culture of intellectual freedom, but when theologians and scholars rise to power, they perpetuate their own unchanging structures, repeating the same patterns. Indeed, we have never sought confrontation, yet we have been relentlessly attacked, and for the sake of the people, we have remained silent. However, we continue to present our academic views for the benefit of science, always mindful of the delicate way in which we present them.

My purpose in sharing these reflections is to help you understand the environment in which these works were written, highlighting the various nuances involved so that you may appreciate the subtleties of these writings and uncover the hidden meanings behind their apparent words. How can one truthfully declare an opposing theory to be absolutely correct without doubt or ambiguity? If such a thing is observed, it should be understood that this is the result of necessity, and the author had no other choice but to present the theory in a climate of insecurity or to promote national unity. Had you been in their position, you would have found yourself equally lost in presenting your arguments. We have taken many such factors into account, yet, despite our best efforts, some still seek to suppress these works, attempting to prevent them from reaching the public.

I knew of a scholar who had written a book and placed an image of Mohammad Reza Shah on the first page. This elderly scholar was a good man, but I criticized him for this. His intention was to critique and refute a certain university professor’s ideas by associating the Shah’s image with the book, even calling him the “Shi’a King,” which seemed ridiculous at the time. When I met him on the street, I asked him why he included the Shah’s image despite knowing his character. He admitted that he knew the Shah was corrupt and evil, but explained that he had included the image to ensure the book’s publication, as the authorities would otherwise prevent its release. I questioned him further, saying, “Is attacking a person so important that you overlook the evil of someone like Mohammad Reza Shah?” He acknowledged the Shah’s wrongdoings but justified his actions as a form of pragmatism, or “taqiyya.” I strongly opposed such an approach, for how can one promote a greater evil to critique a lesser one? If a person remains silent in their home rather than endorsing such evils, that is far preferable.

This is how things have always been in societies dominated by theologians and superficial scholars. History is full of instances where powerful theologians would quickly label their opponents as heretics and execute them without delay. Unfortunately, in this country, we have always been subjected to various factions and groups, each of which has sought to challenge Shia spirituality.

We hope that this current series will remain steadfast until the far-off time of the reappearance of Imam al-Zamana, who will restore true justice. May peace be upon him.

Islamic Theory Beyond the Clergy

At the beginning of the revolution, Bazargan believed that if society could be properly managed, there would be no need for the clergy’s presence in the government and society. Revelation, he argued, is a general guidance rooted in principles and truths, and it has relevance in various sciences, including management and politics. This is true even in today’s modern and advanced societies. In the future, various sciences will be derived from the Holy Quran, and these will be irreplaceable. It cannot be claimed that today, with the growth and improvement of human intellect, we no longer need religion and revelation. Such a statement is laughable and unfounded. Today, we, as clergy, have not occupied the position of religious and divine propagators. We memorize the verses of the Holy Quran and, based on them, engage in preaching and promoting the faith. Among the many interpretations of the Quran, Tafseer Huda contains innovative ideas and addresses doubts and opinions in the best possible way. We have explained in Tafseer Huda and in another book how humans, without spiritual guidance, cannot truly engage with the Quran and delve into its scientific data. We have also elucidated the necessity of “knowledge-centeredness” in all scientific matters. However, the clergy will never replace divine revelation; rather, they make use of it. Additionally, if scientific data reveals truths, it carries the same result as revelation for humanity, meaning these scientific efforts are respected and endorsed by those who possess divine revelation.

It should also be noted that revelation has not fully conversed with humanity, and it is possible that we have not yet received all revelation. Scientific data might reveal things that were not mentioned in the sources of revelation. However, we consider the Holy Quran to be the identification of the universe; yet, it is not all of God’s knowledge, which is broader than the Quran. One of my wishes is to go to the pulpit and deliver a scientific lecture, while the 124,000 prophets are present, and to present ideas that are not found in the texts and sources handed down to us. No one would be able to claim that these words or discussions come from the speeches of the prophets. Humanity can progress to the point where all the teachings of the prophets are attained through scientific inquiry because science uncovers the truth, and revelation also articulates it. I sometimes joke that if some of the past prophets were to appear in our time in a manner suited to their own era, they would find today’s humanity much stronger than their own followers, and they would not be able to carry out the tasks that humanity can perform today. Human progress is unstoppable; however, even in such circumstances, revelation remains the guiding, effective, leading, and illuminating force.

Nevertheless, humans, with their many errors in science, cannot do without the content of revelation. The removal of revelation from human life is inconceivable and baseless. Revelation is like rain: the rain comes from the clouds, but revelation comes from the divine. Revelation, like rain, has a structure that is harmonized with time, place, conditions, and environment, and it adapts to them. Every revelation that descends is not alien to its time and place, even though both in its occurrence and persistence, it may vary due to the influence of time, place, and the condition of the nations. Revelation corresponds to the external text and reality, and mistakes are related to the mind, as there are no doubts or errors in the external world. For this reason, revelation is never distorted, conditional, or mistaken. Errors are entirely related to the mind and the sciences associated with the mind. It should be noted that revelation and the environment are one and not multiple; they possess a distinct identity. A person who is ignorant and lacking in scientific knowledge may make mistakes and create conflicts between science and revelation. All religions and revelations have distinct identities, and the religions of Jesus, Moses, and Abraham are essentially one, all conveying truths. Religions, through their commandments and characteristics, have a personal unity that is clear and evident. This discussion pertains to the origin of revelation. Its persistence is like the issue of infallibility, and it is dependent solely on divine reports. We, as ordinary humans, cannot establish or revoke infallibility for anyone, nor can we act as judges and arbiters. This matter is entirely news-based, and a person whose status as a bearer of revelation and infallibility has been established should declare the same for another person. Prophethood and the infallibility of the prophet are proven through miracles. Science, in determining infallibility, is inadequate and ineffective; it can only provide evidence supporting the correctness of the reports from the bearers of revelation.

Ayatollah Shabir Khaghani

May God have mercy on the late Imam and Shabir Khaghani! Shabir Khaghani moved to the city of Qom and lived there for a time, and we had the privilege of attending his sessions. He was a student of the first batch of Ayatollah Agha Dhiya’ al-Din’s class. Shabir Khaghani was very sensitive to the science of usul (jurisprudence) and believed that other scholars had not studied usul properly nor had they received the proper instruction. He had no faith or trust in any of the scholars on this matter. May God bless him! When political tensions began, he was stationed in Qom to ensure his safety. He criticized Ayatollah Khomeini, saying that Khomeini kisses the hands of students but says nothing about the scholars like us. I responded, saying, “Haj Agha! He kisses the hands of students because they are like his children and younger than him, while you are a mujtahid and like his brother, so he kisses your hands as a sign of respect.” Ayatollah Shabir Khaghani agreed with this explanation. Visits to his house were restricted, and no one dared to visit him. Sometimes, those who met him had anti-revolutionary stances. It was possible that their conversations were being recorded and monitored, and the revolutionaries threatened them to refrain from visiting him. I would meet and talk with him, and the revolutionaries encouraged me to visit him since he was alone, and they thanked me for guiding him. He raised issues regarding the late Imam, and I would resolve them, which was appreciated by him. Sometimes, a person speaks for two hours without ever praising anyone, and yet, despite our generosity, they insist that we should not mention anyone’s name. We live in a society where, if we mention someone’s name, they assume that we have received some kind of favor. Meanwhile, I speak from my heart and express my affection towards people. Unfortunately, the situation is dire. I am familiar with musicians who praise one another, saying, “So-and-so is my teacher,” or “This person has a great quality,” to the point that it makes one feel warmed inside. I wish we had the same quality as these artists. In the negative view of some, when someone praises another, they believe the praised person becomes elevated, while the one who praises is belittled. Just as some consider gossip to be good because the one gossiping elevates themselves while the gossip victim is demeaned. In reality, the one gossiping is merely pointing out flaws in others to clear themselves of any wrongdoing.

Ayatollah Shabir Khaghani, who had been exiled to Qom, was a student of the first class of Ayatollah Agha Dhiya’ al-Din. Ayatollah Ameli was considered a student of the second batch. He said that when Ayatollah Ameli came from the north to study under Ayatollah Agha Dhiya’ al-Din, because he had a beautiful face, we would tease him, saying, “What a good-looking guy!” However, he was a pillar of knowledge in the science of usul. Our interaction with him was quite taxing and expensive. Later, when a group of people, under the name of a violent and harsh wave of leadership, would throw themselves at anything or anyone they saw as an obstacle, these people had no mercy, no knowledge of true loyalty, and no respect for others. They became the instruments of politics of force and deceit, leading others blindly into corruption.

Deployment of Forces to the Front

In the perilous journey of a mystic, obstacles must be overcome one by one, and the stages of the journey must be passed. The soldiers fighting on the front lines of war are no less than mystics in the path of God and the wise men. Our era is a valuable one. We have witnessed and experienced wonders that our ancestors never even knew about. It is uncertain whether our children will be able to witness these truths closely. By the grace and blessings of God, we have been fortunate to witness these realities, and blessed are those who have reached the truth. However, merely witnessing the truth is not enough. The reality is that soldiers were eager to go to the front, but the major obstacle for some was their wives and children, and their responsibilities towards them.

For example, one of the members of the Basij (a paramilitary organization in Iran) was saying that his father was old and frail, requiring care, and he didn’t know how to address this problem. Despite this, the soldiers, with much hardship and difficulty, managed to solve their problems and remove obstacles. Some had fewer barriers to going to the front lines of the war, while others had more. We were created by God in a time of light, and we were granted an extraordinary era. How fortunate we are to be living in a time surrounded by very virtuous and outstanding people, just as there are also individuals as vile as Ibn Ziyad and Harmala, who are not the subject of my discourse. Some of the people born in this age are indeed very righteous and distinguished. When these people, in the afterlife, share their knowledge with the deceased, the people of the grave benefit and derive immense pleasure from it. The souls residing in the afterlife say, “How fortunate you were to live in such an extraordinary era, an era so vast in scope.” They would say, “You have encountered and known so many different kinds of people. This is a great privilege, for we live in a time where it is possible to witness and recognize the wicked individuals like Harmala and Shimmer and others as corrupt and evil.” More importantly, we now have the opportunity to meet individuals who are more virtuous than many of the companions, such as Salman, Abu Dharr, and Miqdad. We have had martyrs who were pure and unique in their righteousness, whose positions remain hidden from the people of this time due to their distance from divine sanctity and the lack of their direct divine confirmation. Some martyrs of the revolution were so exceptional that, with confidence, I can say that we would only find individuals of their calibre among the companions of Imam Hussein, and the other Imams had few, if any, such individuals. May God bless their souls, for they truly were pure human beings.

I recall the brother of one martyr who said to me, “Haj-Agha, I was a truck driver’s apprentice and raised my brother through such laborious work. I carried loads with the truck and traveled long roads. Sometimes the truck’s tire would burst, and I would be stranded. In the snow, rain, and cold, I would be stuck. I raised my brother through so much hardship, and now he has become a martyr, and I have lost him.” In fact, both the martyrs and their parents were extraordinary beings. What an amazing time we were placed in on this Earth. God has granted us a magnificent era, and how fortunate we are to live in it! We have witnessed many marvels. We have seen not only deceitful people of all kinds but also good and truthful individuals of all types. We have witnessed the purity of the children of the revolution up close. I saw a soldier at the front who had been so sunburned his skin was peeling off. He had worked as a shepherd in the desert. I thought to myself, his skin will peel off further due to the harsh conditions of the front, but his skin would remain smooth and clear.

I lived in Zahedan for a while, and I was invited to a Ramadan Iftar gathering. May God have mercy on Mr. Abadi! At that time, he was the Friday prayer leader in that city. He had previously led the Friday prayers in Mashhad. He said to me, “Haj-Agha, these people are planning to go to the front, and before they leave, please give a lecture for them.” I went up to the pulpit. The pulpit was very high. When I looked at the audience, I noticed that many of them were workers, shepherds, and people from the nearby villages. Therefore, I decided not to give a speech. When Mr. Abadi asked me why I refrained from speaking, I replied, “I am not someone who is shameless. These people are from the villages, and they are sincere in their actions. If they ask me why I, a scholar, do not go to the front, I have no answer to give them. You, as a person who is well-known for your piety, should go ahead and give the sermon. These people are workers and hard-working individuals. If you strike their skin with a nail, it will peel off. They were the ones who made the revolution and brought it to victory. They have given martyrs and have become martyrs themselves.” When they were about to be sent to the front lines, Mr. Abadi asked me to lead them under the Quran. I once again declined, saying, “I am not shameless; you should take care of it.” These people can question me on the Day of Judgement and demand an answer. I will remain behind, and they will not notice me, nor will they ask about my presence. No, I was not present among you. In fact, I was not on the front lines. If I went to the front, four other people would have to support me with food and water. Going to the front would be of no benefit. The key is to remove the barriers and to begin by following one’s own words. This is why I say that the time of the war was a time of happiness and joy. Blessed are those who passed the exam with flying colours, meaning the martyrs, and blessed are those who passed with some concessions, meaning the soldiers who survived the war. Woe to those who are like trash and failed the exam, and woe to those who dance and boast at the graves of the martyrs, using them for their own gain. Such people are the worst and most unfortunate, and they are even worse than the likes of Ibn Ziyad and Harmala. If there were another Karbala, they would commit the worst atrocities with cruelty, all under the pretense of religious justification. May God cast them into Hell through the intercession of the martyrs, for dancing on the graves of the martyrs is an incredibly shameful and unforgivable act.

During the war, I witnessed genuine fighters who had dedicated their hearts to the system, the revolution, and the Imam. These individuals did not speak much in battle; rather, they acted, embodying self-sacrifice, martyrdom, and the spirit of the wounded. They did not even write wills. Later, the clerics would ask them to write wills so that they could use them in their own propaganda. Otherwise, these warriors were not interested in creating documents for themselves, for history, for the press, or for the media. They were truly devoted and had placed their lives entirely in the service of religion. For the eight years of the war, it was these selfless individuals who defended Iran and managed the war. They were the ones who emerged victorious. On the other hand, those who spoke about the war from behind the scenes or in front of cameras were only talkers and were not of the same calibre as these true warriors. It was the latter who endured the hardships and struggles, while the former took the credit.

I was arrested 29 times by SAVAK during the Shah’s regime and made around twenty trips to the front during the war. My knowledge, both from that time and the war, is profound. I have written twenty volumes about the experiences of today’s claimants. I hold the strategic knowledge of the eight-year war in my hands, which I have documented in a book. In it, I describe in detail who filled the ranks at the front and defended the system, highlighting the extent of involvement of various clerics in the war. Few clerics participated in the actual battles, and those who were martyred often died behind the lines or were killed by internal enemies.

I recall sitting in a large tent in Fao with a group of high-ranking commanders who are still alive today and are very vocal about their past contributions. During the war, large tents served as command posts. Suddenly, a mortar shell hit, setting part of the tent on fire. Everyone rushed out, scattering like crows. A table of food had been laid out. I stayed seated because I knew the fate of certain individuals. I had no more food and said to myself, “I’ll make amends and eat these fish without a sauce, and later pay for them.” One of the commanders shouted, “Haj Agha, come here, you’re burning!” To which I replied, “Haj Agha, my foot!” These commanders, who only came to the front to open cans of food or to take pictures with a rifle, were not real warriors. I said to them, “This is the people’s bread you’re eating. You think you can run the war? Why did you run away from here? You’re commanders here, but you don’t even know if the area is under attack or if someone is going to be martyred. I’m certain that no one here is going to die. Even if there’s a fire, no one will be martyred.”

Over time, when I visited the frontlines, especially with the high-ranking commanders, I noticed that many of them slept soundly all night, neglecting even the morning prayers. These commanders were among those who led to the moment where the elderly, spiritually devoted Imam drank the poison of despair. The poison these commanders gave him will not only catch up with them on Judgment Day, but it has also caused irreparable harm in the here and now. They are the ones who pushed Imam to this tragic fate. Those who led the frontlines were ordinary people, workers, teachers, and selfless individuals who sacrificed their own lives and were fearless in the face of death. These were the true warriors who did not seek fame or power.

During the war, the frontlines were held by ordinary people—workers, teachers, students, and clerics—who were either unmarried, newlywed, or had young children. On the other hand, the so-called clerics and high-ranking commanders of the revolution, who had no true presence at the front, were just playing political games. They sought to create a facade for themselves, taking photographs and filming their supposed bravery. I remember one such incident. A certain commander, wearing a tie, was so obsessed with his appearance that he would carefully adjust it before addressing the people, unwilling to allow a stain on his tie. Meanwhile, the people waited for him, and Imam, with his understanding, would glance at me as if to say, “This man is more concerned with his tie than the people he is supposed to serve.” The true commanders of the war were not those who worried about appearances. They were the ones who fought alongside the ordinary people, without any self-interest.

As the war dragged on and these genuine commanders were lost, the mafia of power and wealth began to infiltrate the core of leadership. They handed Imam the poisoned chalice, and over time, they took control of the seminaries and distorted the revolution. The real heroes of the revolution were the common people who fought on the frontlines, not those who claimed to be revolutionaries from behind desks. These true fighters, who sacrificed everything without self-interest, were the ones who brought victory.

The commanders of the war, the ones who truly led on the ground, were ordinary men—workers, farmers, and teachers. They did not hold high academic titles or clerical ranks, but their courage and selflessness defined the victory of the revolution. The current system, which is ruled by those with no real content, serves to suppress and hide the true heroes of our time. The media today celebrates the weak and the powerless, and avoids recognizing true talent and intellect. The real revolutionaries were those who lived and died for the cause without any expectation of reward.

I strongly believe that for the next 600 years, we will not face a war of the same magnitude. The faith and purity of the martyrs of the eight-year war have provided us with a spiritual shield, ensuring that foreign threats will not harm us. Those who claim that we must fight outside our borders to prevent an invasion are simply making excuses for their own failure and weakness. The blood of the martyrs will never be wasted—it will always expose the falsehoods of those who seek to manipulate and deceive the people.

They do not realise that we will soon seize them. And I give them time; for My plan is firm. If they think that by detaining a student—who is a true child of the seminaries and has no equal under the sky of Qom—they have taken hold of someone significant, they are mistaken. In reality, it is God who is gradually bringing an end to the grace He has granted them, and it is He who will seize them. These power-brokers think they are drowned in blessings and power, but all their actions are illicit, for they are not jurists and have no legitimate authority. Their unlawful actions have made them ferocious, and this ferocity will harm the society and the people. By arresting the best of the seminary figures and imprisoning the true servants of God, they expose themselves. This is a divine stratagem and deception directed at this mafia-like faction; that is, granting them time to eventually entrap and publicly disgrace them. The blood of the martyrs seeks to purify the revolution, to rid it of its impurities and to capture its refuse. If the flame of the revolution has dimmed in some places, it is due to the impure fuel, caused by the infiltration of mafias wielding power and wealth. But God, by the grace of the martyrs’ blood, has granted the people enough patience and strength to separate the infiltrating impurities from them, revealing the true faces of the deceivers. The revolution has now entered a phase of purification, aiming to expel the internal traitors and protect itself from doubt, weakness, fear, confusion, uncertainty, and the selfish desire for survival. Through the fight against systemic corruption, it will continue its path purified and strengthened. A revolution that has lost its momentum becomes weak; it cannot flourish in knowledge, nor can it take action. Instead, it resorts to propaganda and makes theatrical performances. This purification process, the expulsion of infiltrators and hypocrites, will be carried out by the oppressed people who, just as they held the front lines in the war, now seek to safeguard the health of their revolution. This process of purification is essential for healing the revolution, expelling the illicit gains of the corrupt infiltrators. Without this cleansing, the revolution will lose its ability to act and serve the people. The power of the revolution would then be consumed by fraudulent and legally dubious schemes, producing no result for the people other than making them mere pawns for demonstrations and rallies, performing rituals like a prayer without ablution. The revolution is like a water jar that has stored the toil of the people for forty years, but in its moment of cooling, its moisture seeps out, revealing what has been inside. The revolution now seeks to filter out its impurities, expel the infiltrators, and lighten and rejuvenate itself. Today is the time for the revolution’s reconstruction, led by those who have endured its hardships—the very individuals who are now being arrested. They resist the mafia with sincere and conscious resolve, just as the warriors in the battlefront resisted. Even if they are arrested or killed a thousand times, they will continue to face this challenge with patience and perseverance, never losing their faith. The outcome of their struggle will, God willing, be the purification of the Islamic revolution and the fruitful result of the blood of the martyrs, as well as the eradication of the enemies and infiltrators.

The Pass of Uhud: The Cultural and Scientific Front of the Islamic Revolution

A transformational approach is one of the prevalent pitfalls in jurisprudence and in any field of knowledge. It is the root cause of many disputes and conflicts. Both the outward and the inward, the actions and the intentions, must work together effectively, for one without the other is weak and impotent. The outward-focused individuals neglect the inner, while some of those who claim to focus on the inner neglect the outward. This has been a major source of disputes. A particular example of this occurred at the beginning of the revolution in one of the cities (Gonabad), and I travelled there to resolve it. One of the clerics had a strong animosity towards the Sufis of the region. He showed great respect for me, and in the sessions I held there, both in the mosque and in the Sufi lodge, he attended along with the local authorities. The people there, who worked hard in saffron cultivation, often faced vision problems due to working on salt-laden lands. They would contribute a portion of their saffron, which they had obtained through great hardship, to support the Sufis. While the Sufis are generally simple-hearted and good people, among their leaders there are those who use such donations for their own comfort, and some are even linked to foreign powers, particularly the British. I would give sermons both in the mosque and in the Sufi lodge. Both the mosque-goers and the Sufis attended and participated in both places. I considered the family of the Prophet, especially Imam Ali and Imam Hussain, as the unifying point for both groups. In the Sufi lodge, I spoke of Imam Ali, and in the mosque, I spoke of Imam Hussain. The problem, however, was with the Sufi leader, who had accumulated wealth from the simplicity of the people and was the one who needed to be reprimanded, not the simple-minded Sufis. Unfortunately, the cleric there was engaging with the weak and naive individuals. The most significant issue with Sufism is superficial thinking and a lack of deep knowledge. With their limited understanding, they quickly become enamoured with the claims and wonders of some individuals and fall prey to them. This lack of understanding and reliance on unqualified individuals, particularly the fraudulent and deceitful ones, renders their spiritual journey shallow and futile. The methods of such individuals have misleading, disorienting, and destructive effects, but true spiritual paths lead to self-development and enlightenment. Particularly, these claimants consider themselves more knowledgeable and capable than the rare, genuine spiritual guides and, through noisy antics, obstruct the way of the true seekers. The recitations that the Sufis take from these impostors sometimes invite the influence of evil forces, subjecting their lives to temptations and deceit, completely corrupting their minds. This is one of the serious dangers of Sufism and one of the harmful effects of seeking guidance from unqualified and fraudulent individuals.

Mysticism, inner focus, spiritual journey, Sufism, and Sufism, if all point to the pursuit of truth and are based on knowledge and awareness, can result in a beautiful and modern knowledge that becomes the bride of the sciences. One of the most important Sufi leaders of Kazakhstan once spoke to me about the differences between Shia and Sunni, mysticism, jurisprudence, and other mystical schools. He asked how we could resolve these differences. He was a prominent figure, both academically and as the Grand Mufti of Kazakhstan, and was over seventy years old, very wise and knowledgeable. He expressed his frustration about being taken to meet certain famous individuals, stating that they were empty of substance and that it was an insult to him to be introduced to them. He said that he had become disillusioned with all the rhetoric that Iran is the “Mother of the World.” The people he had met seemed devoid of content, and these meetings had diminished his regard for them. I responded to him by saying that Sufism, mysticism, and spiritual journeys do not have a fundamental conflict or dispute if they are understood with logic and scholarly methods. Of course, the root cause of the disagreement lies with those in power, particularly the outward-focused individuals who do not engage with knowledge in a systematic and deep manner and seek to impose their superficial thoughts on society, individuals, and experts through manipulation and deceit. In mysticism, there is little difference between the mystics of Shia and Sunni traditions, as well as between Islamic mysticism and the mysticism of the Abrahamic faiths such as Judaism and Christianity. All generally speak of a common spiritual journey in pursuit of truth. The conflict arises from those in power, particularly those who belong to the faction of the “Nahravanians” and the Khawarij, who continue to emerge in every era. The rigid, hot-tempered individuals who, with fanaticism and extremism, create discord and, with cruelty, become pawns for the mafia of power and wealth, playing on the emotions of others. Otherwise, as they say, a Sufi is someone who holds no malice, his heart is free from all impurity, and his character is shaped by kindness and sincerity. His heart is as clear as a mirror, and his actions are driven by truth and purity.

The dervish strives to be like the essence of purity, and seeks no quarrel with anyone. He views all of God’s servants with the same eye. He regards the phenomena of existence as the manifestation of the divine. A dervish is free from greed, and has no expectations, which would lead him to engage in conflicts with others. He sees God as the cause, and the Almighty as the inheritor of all. In my poems, I have described the dervish in the following manner:

“I am a dervish, and ‘Truth’ is my own, a dervish, whether behind or before.”

“You are a dervish, and the world is a dervish, for dervishhood lies in distance from all ego.”

A dervish is someone who has no attachment to the creation or to worldly desires. He has a heart, but it is entirely devoted to love for the truth. The purity of the heart lies in not differentiating between anyone, and treating everyone as you would treat your own children, or desiring for others the same things you desire for yourself. For example, I have several canaries which I love as much as my own children. Quarrels and disputes arise from ignorance, rigidity, and the selfish ambitions of the ego. All beings have hearts, and this heart is their essence, their entire being—from my canaries to lions and tigers, to the faithful, the Sunnis, the People of the Book, and everyone else. All share the same heart, and all are connected through this heart. However, the tyrannical rulers, driven by their selfish needs and desire to maintain power, resort to war and violence, distancing themselves from peace and harmony. They pit communities, nations, and ethnicities against each other to secure their dominance.

For instance, during the early days of the revolution in Kermanshah, there was a fierce conflict between the Ahl-e-Haq and the Shia. The Ahl-e-Haq had attacked Shia mosques with stones. They had many elders. I invited these elders to a meeting and said to them, “No one has a problem with your beards and mustaches, and if you have a disagreement, let’s resolve it here in this meeting and not bring it to the people. People, whether Shia or Ahl-e-Haq, have no quarrel among them; the dispute is for you, the leaders.” At that time, rumors had spread that clerics were cutting off the beards of the dervishes and Ahl-e-Haq with scissors. I told them, “The ruler is the Book and the Sunnah, not scissors. We have no issues with anyone’s beard or mustache. We do not let a small matter destroy our relationships. We are all followers of Ali, and you mistakenly say we are followers of Allah, but it’s Ali who is ‘the Lord of the World,’ not Allah. Even Ayatollah Khomeini is a follower of Ali.” No one is superior to anyone else, and no one is against the revolution. Everyone desires to see their country prosper. Back then, around 1980, we used to say that personal preferences, appearance, or beliefs should not interfere with one another, but as time went on, this became a tool for spying on even the smallest issues in society. Of course, we had to withdraw from politics by the early 1980s due to witnessing these unethical and un-Islamic practices, and we focused all our efforts on academic work, particularly in extensive and profound jurisprudential research.

A significant part of the social, cultural, and political problems faced by the country stems from the simplicity, inexperience, and lack of education among some of the clerics who became involved in the administrative management or theoretical planning for the system. These clerics, because of their simplicity, were taken advantage of by some cunning politicians who placed large hats on their heads and misled both them and the public. The simple clerics who entered government, due to their naivety, took on more than they could handle. Even if they have caused many problems, it is due to carrying burdens that were too heavy for them. Some of the elderly clerics elevated to positions of religious leadership had no managerial or academic capability to guide an Islamic society, and the results of this are clear for everyone to see. These individuals are not qualified to theorize based on Sharia law for the management of society, nor are they competent to provide solutions for social problems. Society, too, is aware and smarter than these individuals, and just like the politicians, they no longer pay attention to them. The “use-by” date for many of these elderly religious figures has passed. However, if we protest or demand leadership, they have the power to imprison us for years behind high walls. One of these weak individuals has no courage to raise even the slightest objection to the problems; instead, they flatter and grovel. I am a free person, but those with power have deprived everyone of freedom and suppress the smallest voice of criticism or protest. The regime that controls the seminaries or its mafia has treated us in the harshest ways and has kept us in turmoil and hardship, to the point that we have become accustomed to this situation. We have spent sixty years of our life and academic career here, yet we have been met with the worst treatment. We have always supported this regime, but it has not been able to ensure our security. Whenever I traveled abroad to academic centers, I received the best facilities and the safest environment. Everyone knows I am not an ordinary person, and academic centers recognize that no one in the humanities can rival my theoretical approach that spans politics, society, philosophy, psychology, jurisprudence, and mysticism. However, the mafia within the seminaries not only prevents our scientific discussions from benefiting the seminary and academic community, but they also, with all their might, try to render us worthless, even anti-value, as they have done by imprisoning us for three years since 2014. What is called the clergy, religious authorities, and Qom seminaries today bears no resemblance to their historic reputation for freedom. They have silenced and neutralized the voices of truth either by miraculous wealth or brute force, and the military has elevated whoever they desired, only to realize later how much they have erred. These are the dangerous times for the seminaries. Leadership, as the forefront of the revolutionary seminaries, has the most grief and problems due to the widespread confusion in the system. We sympathize with them and feel for their distress. Their capacity is not greater than this. We must not be unjust. The leadership has been the shield against all criticisms and calamities, sacrificing its reputation and dignity.

I had several meetings with Mr. Rafsanjani. He was deeply upset about the situation, saying, “We initiated the movement and people died for it; how do we answer to them? On the Day of Judgment, they will ask us why we sent them to the frontlines to be killed for this chaos and mismanagement.” I do not want to say the officials have no problems; nor am I saying that they are infallible and flawless. But they are also upset about the current situation unless they choose to completely ignore fairness, conscience, and reality, and insist on their authority. Before the revolution, revolutionaries had passion, and the people accepted and respected them, honored them, and prayed for them. Despite all the hardships of those days, it was a celebration for them. But now, all we hear is criticism and protest, and even the brief greetings we receive are superficial and formal.

I am not a simple person. For almost a year, Mohsen Rezaei regularly came to me with proposals. One day, he invited me to his home in Loyzan. I told him, “Look, my friend, I was a gambler before, then I became a cleric, don’t think I am simple. Speak honestly with me.” When I arrived at his house around 4 PM, he welcomed me and said, “Haj-Agha, we have not yet prayed the noon and afternoon prayers, so we can pray together.” Anyway, what has the result been of my withdrawal from politics and my pursuit of academic freedom? One day I said to Mr. Marvi, “I do not know who in this country has become my adversary and is causing me trouble.” I told him to ask the leadership to clarify the matter, to ask explicitly: yes or no! If they say no, we do not want you, I will leave the country and never return. But let them tell me so clearly, so tomorrow they cannot claim they did not know what was happening. Mr. Beheshti, may God rest his soul, used to say, “We are the nucleus, we are tied to these people’s beards.” I now see it as my duty to stay in Qom and defend this area of seminary knowledge, even if I am alone. I told Mr. Marvi that Mr. Rafsanjani must have called many times and sent his people to arrange meetings, but I have always said no. I have no dealings with the politicians and have no faith in anyone. Mr. Marvi replied, “You do not believe in clerical diplomacy, nor do you attend political meetings or participate in social occasions.” I said, “Yes, I have no connections with anyone. I leave home only for my lessons at the Feyziyeh. I am not idle; I have many unfinished books to complete. I just want to sit quietly and work on my academic work, and I am not involved in politics.” However, they have not only failed to assist me but have actively obstructed my work and prevented my books from being published, which harms the country itself. My books address the concerns of twenty million educated people with innovation and critical responses to prevalent issues. I only have teaching, research, and writing. You could not secure my safety. Every morning when I leave the house, I have to check if someone is waiting to harm me so I can defend myself.

With these unethical and un-Islamic actions, do you think you can discourage me or pressure me to leave this country, for instance, to Najaf? If you are sincere, just say no, and I will leave. I am ashamed before the martyrs and the wounded, and I feel embarrassed before them. God bless martyr Beheshti, he used to say, “We are the nucleus, tied to these people’s beards.” Anyway, God has the final say, and the ship will reach its destination as He wills, even if the captain wears tattered clothes. You have a scholar who has written eight hundred academic works, and if you find anyone in Qom or the clerical system with so many scholarly works, I will lay down my turban. These actions are not right.

Mr. Marvi! I care for you, and I should not speak to you this way, but I am so free and fond of you that I had to tell you exactly what I feel. I do not consider political games to be your dignity. On the Day of Judgment, I will say that I have expressed everything as it is. I, too, believe in the principle of leadership, I, too, have faith, and I have always supported the revolution and the system. Why, then, do you engage with someone whose academic ideas could solve half the system’s problems? Why engage with him in conflict when he has no desire to fight and only engages in scholarly activities? Such negative actions cannot sustain the system. The revolution will ultimately consume itself with these wrong moves. The revolution will, one by one, devour its own children, and this is extremely dangerous. Mr. Marvi! The path you have chosen has brought the system to the point where it is devouring its own children. This system is consuming itself, and it is very dangerous, as it may soon begin to consume the people themselves. The people, however, have honor and, to protect themselves, they will change the path of the wave-riders and those who hinder, so that the system may return to its rightful path.

In any case, the seminary needs a serious academic review to make itself up-to-date and practical. I have been pursuing the necessary research for this fundamental transformation over the years, to the extent that my writings now number eight hundred books. More than twenty of these books deal directly with the seminary, its problems, and ways to overcome them. If this transformation does not happen, and if the understanding of religion and correct ijtihad do not find their true path, the decay of outdated ideas within the seminary will collapse with the slightest pressure. However, the seminaries still have their owners, and the wave-riders, traitors, and exploiters of the seminary and the simplicity of its students will be struck by a hard reality. Although, in the name of justice, they will be given a few days to reflect on their actions before they face divine punishment.

However, the adversaries approach us and our writings in such a negative and detrimental manner, where opponents and those with malicious intentions attack philosophy, mysticism, jurisprudence, spirituality, and even the Qur’an. These books can be the strongest deterrents in the academic community. In other words, through these actions, they commit the gravest betrayal to religion and science. With the slanders they propagate, they aim to break us within society; yet, in reality, these actions only bring defeat upon themselves. For their own sake, I am concerned and compassionate towards them, urging them to distance themselves from this irretrievable deadlock before it is too late. Over these fourteen centuries, I swear by God that no scholar has written such books. However, the narrow-minded mentality and sycophantic behavior towards the powerful demand such actions. I have told them, “Take these books and write your name on them or the name of any other scholar you prefer; let anyone’s name be written on them, but allow these books to reach those who are truly entitled to them.” Yet, they continue with violence and negative actions. They have transformed all of it into trash, into something impure and wasted. We, on the other hand, have not gathered enough strength to counter these forces. I have worked tirelessly to print about one hundred and fifty titles of these books, even though I am not a publisher. I myself must bind these books, and I cannot simply discard them, as they are not mine. They are a trust in my hands, and I must deliver them to the people and the students. If they belonged to me, I would not even go near them; I would enjoy my tea in peace. These books belong to the Mahdi (Imam al-Zamana). Were it not for the mafia of these forces obstructing me, giving me the power, resources, and space to work, I would have written two thousand books in the most crucial academic fields and employed students, ensuring none of them would remain idle. A valuable treasure, a mine of divine knowledge, is being obstructed in this way.

In my will, I also stated that these books are not for my heirs or my children; they belong to the Imam al-Zamana and have no personal connection to my life. They must be delivered to the students and the people.

In any case, since the age of nineteen, I have pursued Shi’ite jurisprudence and theoretical jurisprudence with seriousness and complete dedication in my lessons and numerous writings. I have had no other occupation. I have never even preached on the pulpit; perhaps I have given a few short lectures a year. I have considered my own research as my pulpit, and I have viewed this as the most essential form of struggle—especially since I have known that religious engineering is not something that others can achieve, and that claimants with wealth, power, and the support of others have created a commotion. One day, I told the nephew of Mr. Khamenei, who had come to visit me, “Do you know of any scholar in the clerical establishment who has written eight hundred academic and specialized books?” Why do they treat us like this? We printed one hundred and fifty titles of books in the first stage, and we intended to print another hundred and fifty, but all the narrow-minded and reactionary figures obstructed us. It seems their only task is to confront our writings. They did not allow us to complete the necessary research for religion and Islamic and human sciences. Initially, when no one was willing to teach us at the Fayzieh Seminary, due to the increasing number of students and the pressure they exerted, they finally agreed to give us three teachers, one of whom was quite small, and the students had to wait outside the seminary due to overcrowding. When they saw this overcrowding was problematic, they finally agreed to assign us a larger classroom, but as the classes became full, they started asking for bribes and greetings. We have always been independent, from the beginning. During the 1980s, when Mr. Montazeri was in power, I was giving lectures on the “Mansoomah” (Philosophy of Logic) at the Arak Hall. Our classes on philosophy were the most crowded, with more than four hundred students attending. At that time, they asked me why I didn’t mention Mr. Montazeri in my lessons. I replied, “I neither receive any bribes from you nor give bribes. I should be praised for delivering this lesson, not for them to try to extract money from me.” I do not consider it permissible to sacrifice one’s principles for any reason, but I also do not seek to create problems. These serious academic endeavors require security, peace, and support, but all I face are obstacles, entanglements, and expectations for sycophantic behaviour and dependency. They suspended my lessons, reassigned our teachers, and took away the Fayzieh Seminary from us. It was as though Fayzieh was their paternal inheritance, and they were the rightful heirs. This is the treatment I have constantly faced, but I stand firm, and the more they interfere, the more I feel at peace and more determined to do what God desires. They gathered and destroyed my books. More than forty titles of my works were seized from various locations, and thousands of academic books were ground up, shredded, and eradicated. Is Imam al-Zamana pleased with such actions? Is this not a violation of people’s rights? Initially, they claimed this was all nonsense, but when they raided my house and seized dozens of computers and access to prepared manuscripts, they realized the writings were genuine. They even destroyed those works that had already been approved for publication. They raided the houses of the students and seized copy after copy of these books, issuing orders to destroy them.

They fabricated files on innocent students, solely because they were my pupils, using forged documents to create criminal records for them. Seeing this treatment, the students became more resolute in their belief in our ideas. I have written over one hundred books solely on jurisprudence, but is it not political and military forces that determine religious authority, rather than scientific ability and spiritual worth? Will future generations not look back and say that the religious and academic authority in Shi’ism was not independent and free, but subordinated and compromised? Does such a system, by its nature, embody an Islamic governance, or a religious government? Just as Mr. Rafsanjani lamented, is not this religion and these seminaries reduced to mere political machinery?

In reality, the government enforces its policies and forces a distorted version of religion onto the people. Through this imposed structure, the authority of the seminaries and religious establishments becomes compromised. The religious leadership and guidance that should be freely and independently pursued are now shaped and dictated by political and military needs.

I rewrote his work and reminded him of the intellectual precision that had been neglected. I then said, “The articles you write for magazines and newspapers, for which you are paid, are essentially the blood money of your life. This money is in exchange for your life, yet it offers nothing more than shallow, superficial writing. These articles destroy your blood, your life, and your identity, while they provide you with only a few coins. Being occupied with such writing deteriorates both your mind and pen, injecting simplicity and superficial thinking into your work.” We have worked extensively on these books, all of which are specialized. On the Day of Judgment, they will not ask when this book was written, but rather, they will ask, “What have you written?” I then jokingly told him, “If they are paying you this much for these writings, how much should they pay me? Whereas, they not only give me nothing but also defame, persecute, and restrict me, and in the end, they destroy all my writings by fabricating countless slanders.” “Well, let them destroy them. We have done our duty,” I continued, quoting the saying of Abd al-Muttalib: “For the House, there is a Lord.” God will deliver this investment to the people and will make it widespread, and the current obstructers will not see any benefit in their lives.

Such encounters, which have not occurred in the past thousand years and which support this great service, only render nonsense in the end. Had I been outside this country, in safety and comfort with the necessary resources, I would have had more than two thousand books published. But I must stay in this narrow space and avoid conflict with this system. Of course, I should add that, sociologically speaking, today’s political game is not a wrestling match. Instead, it is more like football—if everyone plays as part of a team and fulfills their role, the game will succeed. Currently, the protestors and critics, disconnected from each other, are like wrestlers who are defeated by the lever of force. This collective, team-like approach to critical, converging football criticism will hit the goalposts of the forces of power.

Chaharshanbe-Suri (The Last Wednesday of the Year)

Before the revolution, people celebrated joyful traditions like Yalda night and Chaharshanbe-Suri, maintaining the customs associated with them. For instance, on Chaharshanbe-Suri, some men would wear a chador (headscarf) and enter homes, or take a bowl in hand and go among the people. Occasionally, someone wearing a chador would be unexpectedly dragged into a house. In any case, they aimed to create a joyful, festive atmosphere, share good spirits, and spread kindness. The local authorities did not disturb the people or interfere with the ceremonies, and there was no government protest or intentional destruction of these traditions. In Tehran, such ceremonies held great importance. I personally appreciate Chaharshanbe-Suri, Yalda night, and some of their rituals. Some people even believed in the spiritual significance of these ceremonies, believing that their vows would be accepted and their prayers answered, or that the sick would be healed. Many did these rituals for their spiritual benefits. Such traditional, joy-bringing ceremonies are very good, and there is no harm in them. Seminary scholars should not become involved in opposing these various forms of joy and celebration, as this only causes distress and leads to a negative perception of the clergy, which is undoubtedly harmful. In my opinion, this attitude reflects a “soft coup” within the realm of religion. The enemies aim to discredit religion and present its image as ugly and repulsive to people, and some clerics, both unwittingly and unknowingly, have fallen into the trap of this silent, soft coup. Similar conspiracies against religion and religious leadership occurred during the reign of Muawiya. For example, a lamb belonging to a child would be stolen, and Muawiya would attribute the theft to Imam Ali in order to tarnish the Imam’s reputation among the people of Syria and strip him of his credibility. Muawiya exaggerated the threat posed by Imam Ali to the Syrians so that they would remain indifferent to the numerous murders and crimes he committed, viewing him as a significant and dangerous enemy, rather than focusing on Muawiya’s actions and policies.

One evening during Chaharshanbe-Suri, a speaker complained about how some people cause disturbances with their celebrations, making noise, disturbing people’s nerves, and creating traffic congestion. These criticisms are valid; however, the question arises: do not religious ceremonies sometimes also involve people shouting and creating noise, causing roads to be blocked and heavy traffic? Can we reasonably label religious ceremonies as acceptable, yet call Chaharshanbe-Suri as illogical? Certainly, if they cause disturbances, both ceremonies are unreasonable, but for some members of society, their actions do not necessarily need to be rational. Some ceremonies are old traditions passed down through generations. However, the problems associated with Chaharshanbe-Suri are partly due to the authorities, who, by excessively prohibiting these celebrations, create frustration and resistance in the public. This excessive prohibition also leads to the loss of standard celebrations, replacing them with substandard, illicit fireworks that cause tragic accidents.

When a country manufactures advanced spacecraft, airplanes, helicopters, and chemical drugs, it is entirely possible to design flawless fireworks and think about their safe standardization. Hence, attention should be given to the safety and standards of fireworks used by children, and it is the responsibility of the authorities to invest in this matter. In the country, military ammunition such as cannons, tanks, and grenades are produced without causing harm, because these products are all standardized and safe, just as great care is taken in the production of cars to ensure their safety. Similarly, the tools used for public entertainment should be given due importance, and the safety standards of those tools should be observed. If there are any fundamental issues, they do not stem from the Chaharshanbe-Suri ceremony itself, but from the lack of attention, investment, and proper standardization of the materials used for these celebrations, which leads people to resort to substandard and unsafe products. Thus, there is no harm or damage to the public. Just as thousands of bullets can be used without harm to the public, especially practice rounds that do not inflict pain on the target, the same applies to fireworks.

In conclusion, if Chaharshanbe-Suri is criticized as illogical or harmful, many religious ceremonies could be similarly criticized. However, religious ceremonies are culturally sustained because they are supported by proper design and institutional backing. In contrast, traditional Iranian ceremonies, like Chaharshanbe-Suri, face harm due to the lack of support, healthy cultural development, and standardization of the celebratory materials used. Moreover, the misguided prohibitions imposed by certain individuals only fuel people’s desire to engage in harmful activities and use substandard, dangerous materials.