Full Text of Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi’s Remarks on the Topic: The Method of Converting Jurisprudential Propositions into Social Norms in the Conduct of Imam Khomeini (RA)

News

Session Moderator: We warmly welcome the esteemed professor, Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi, and the distinguished attendees present here. On the eve of the anniversary of the demise of the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini (RA), exploring his intellectual contributions, particularly in the field of jurisprudence, can be highly significant and impactful. The “Sunday Methods” series has so far held 45 sessions, primarily focusing on topics related to contemporary jurisprudential methods. In the spring season of this series, discussions have centered on methods for converting jurisprudential propositions into social norms.

Today’s session addresses “The Method of Converting Jurisprudential Propositions into Social Norms in the Conduct of Imam Khomeini (RA),” benefiting from the insights of Ayatullah Nur Mufidi. This session focuses on the pre-revolutionary period, a time when the intellectual foundations of the late Imam took shape and laid the groundwork for implementing jurisprudence in society. I should note that attendees present here and those following us online are encouraged to share any questions related to the topic or discussions. God willing, we will pose these to the esteemed presenter at the end of the session. Without further delay, we invite Ayatullah Nur Mufidi to share his insights.

Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi: I seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and blessings be upon Muhammad and his pure progeny, and curses be upon all their enemies.

Given the limited time allocated, I must present my remarks concisely and succinctly.

Preliminary Notes

Before delving into the discussion, I would like to briefly highlight a few key points:

Shared Methods in Norm-Setting: The methods for transforming values or ideas into norms, regardless of the value judgment of the ideas themselves, are often shared. Whether an idea is deemed positive and truly valuable or not, the methods of converting ideas into norms may be similar. What distinguishes them, beyond the ideas themselves, are the values governing the norm-setting process. When we speak of Imam Khomeini’s method of social norm-setting, it is evident that it has a distinct characteristic that sets it apart from other norm-setting approaches, as these methods are guided by specific values.
Interconnected Methods: The intertwining of norm-setting methods and factors is somewhat inevitable. Thus, I note from the outset that some points I will mention may not seem like methods to some, but from a certain perspective, I consider them all as methods in a broader sense.
Role of the Norm-Setter: Some points may appear as preliminary or foundational to the audience. However, if we envision norm-setting as a triangle with three sides—the norm-setter, the norm-receiver, and the idea or value to be transformed into a norm—a significant part, relevant to our discussion, pertains to the norm-setter. The personality of the norm-setter, or as some call it, the norm-creator, plays a critical role in converting ideas and propositions into social norms. Addressing their qualifications and competencies is integral to this topic. Thus, these points should not be seen as distant preliminaries, as they are essential to the norm-setting process and must be explored.

The Necessity of Norm-Setting

The definition and necessity of norm-setting require no further discussion, as they have been addressed elsewhere. It is self-evident that any idea or value, especially from those with grand aspirations, cannot remain a mere mental ideal but must translate into social behavior and enduring societal norms. For a figure like Imam Khomeini, with his unique characteristics, norm-setting was inevitable. He envisioned a profound mission for the clergy, and in a broader and deeper perspective, divine leaders and prophets are inherently tied to norm-setting. The foundation of their mission is to transform divine ideals and invitations into social norms. Thus, this is an undeniable duty and necessity. As a spiritual leader trained in the school of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) and the seminaries, Imam Khomeini naturally prioritized this mission.

Today’s discussion primarily focuses on one side of this triangle—the “norm-setter,” meaning Imam Khomeini (RA). I will focus on this aspect and temporarily set aside the “norm” and the “norm-receiver,” though connections to these may emerge within the discussion.

Main Themes Regarding the Norm-Setter

Regarding the norm-setter, referring to Imam Khomeini (RA), I will address four key areas:

His qualifications as a norm-setter.
His personal characteristics.
His actions, divided into “primary actions” and “secondary actions.”

The extent to which I can cover these depends on the time available.

1. Qualifications

The qualifications of a norm-setter are, without doubt, a critical aspect of social norm-setting. Imam Khomeini’s qualifications, both scholarly and practical, are evident and require little debate. Let us not dwell on this excessively.

Raised in a devout family environment and trained under prominent teachers in the seminaries, Imam Khomeini was recognized as a comprehensive scholar in jurisprudence, theology, philosophy, exegesis, and mysticism. His scholarly stature is indisputable, and I need not delve into details, as you are all aware of this.

Practically, he was renowned for his piety and sanctity. Stories of his vigilance and ethical conduct, even in his youth, are remarkable. Both his peers and teachers unanimously attest to this. His scholarly and practical virtues rival those of great seminary figures of the past. This covers his qualifications.

2. Personal Characteristics

Several personal characteristics stood out throughout Imam Khomeini’s life, from before his involvement in the movement, during the struggles, and until his demise post-revolution. These require little elaboration, so I will address them briefly:

Deep Conviction and Confidence: The foremost characteristic was his profound belief in his message and confidence in its impact. For someone aiming to transform an idea into a social norm, they must first deeply believe in it. Imam Khomeini possessed this conviction. He was resolute and unwavering, even in the most challenging circumstances. You may have heard the story of the night he was taken from Qom to Tehran, when authorities diverted the car toward the Salt Lake to intimidate him with threats of elimination. The Imam himself said, “By God, they were the ones who were afraid, not me.” Courage, determination, and a deep belief that this was a divine duty were among his defining traits.
Perseverance and Patience: Another key trait was his perseverance and patience, qualities akin to those of prophets. As the Quran states, “Indeed, those who say, ‘Our Lord is Allah,’ and then remain steadfast…” (Quran 41:30). This characteristic aligns with divine leaders and prophets, as the Imam’s message and ideals were drawn from divine commands, the Quran, and Nahj al-Balagha. Trained in this environment, he exemplified steadfastness. This was evident in moments like the loss of his son, Haj Agha Mustafa, whom he saw as a hope for Islam’s future, as well as during exile and other challenges. He not only embodied patience but also encouraged others to remain steadfast. Those close to him noted that, even in the height of difficulties, his demeanor reflected unwavering determination.

I recall a story from the late Mr. Taheri Khorramabadi, under whom we studied Makasib. He recounted that during the turbulent events of the early revolution, particularly in 1342 (1963), they told the Imam, “No matter how hard we try, we cannot focus our minds to study.” The Imam responded, “When I sit to study, it’s as if nothing exists in the world except this book and this topic.” This reflects an extraordinary capacity for calm and patience.

Integrity and Sincerity: Avoiding duplicity in behavior and action, or in one word, sincerity, was paramount. This is crucial for someone seeking to transform an idea or value into a norm. Imam Khomeini’s sincerity was evident before and after the revolution. He never dealt with the people dishonestly and consistently urged officials to uphold sincerity. He advised, “Whatever you do, even if you cannot disclose it to the people now, act in a way that, if one day you must explain it, you can do so without shame.”
Detachment from Personal Interests: He avoided attachment to family ties or personal gains, whether material or intangible, such as social prestige, honor, or recognition.

I will move past these characteristics for brevity.

3. Actions

Imam Khomeini’s actions are divided into two categories: primary actions and secondary actions.

A. Primary Actions

Reform and Production of Theological and Jurisprudential Propositions A critical stage is transforming propositions into social norms, but the propositions themselves are highly significant. A key question is whether the Imam converted existing propositions into social norms or sought to produce and reform certain propositions. Some jurists have turned well-known theological and jurisprudential propositions into norms. Few great scholars have entirely disregarded norm-setting, but the scope of their social environment varied. Some focused on a neighborhood, city, or province. The Imam’s distinction lies in his pursuit of foundational norm-setting to transform society fundamentally, a rare endeavor.

He reformed both theological and jurisprudential propositions. Some jurisprudential propositions are rooted in theological foundations, which is clear. The Imam faced a society where some religious intellectual foundations were flawed. Certain theological propositions needed to be overhauled. For example, distinguishing between a divine and monotheistic worldview versus a materialistic one, the role of humans in existence, human anthropology (who and what is a human?), and the relationship between monotheism and Islamic governance. The Imam believed there was an inherent connection between monotheism and Islamic governance, as well as between religion and politics, the presence of religion in various spheres, the comprehensiveness, eternality, and universality of religion as the seal of all religions, and the issue of Imamate and its extension in the era of occultation through the guardianship of the jurist. He conveyed these through speeches, messages, directly or indirectly via students and teaching circles, aiming to reform prevailing societal notions. These were critical steps for norm-setting, as progress was impossible without such reforms.

Regarding jurisprudential propositions, the Imam both reformed existing ones and produced new ones. For clarity, consider the obligation of taqiyya (dissimulation), a well-accepted jurisprudential proposition. Exceptions to taqiyya, where it is impermissible, are known as mustathniyat taqiyya. The Imam expanded the scope of these exceptions, emphasizing that taqiyya is not obligatory for everyone in all circumstances. For instance, if a prominent social figure like a marja’ taqlid practices taqiyya under coercion, the repercussions of their actions are significant. The Imam stressed considering the social importance of the individual practicing taqiyya. Similarly, when the fundamentals of Islam are at risk, personal harm becomes secondary. Many avoided joining the movement citing taqiyya, but the Imam redefined its boundaries.

On usury stratagems (hiyal riba), the Imam opposed them, arguing that while injustice in usury is its wisdom, not its cause, it is a wisdom that cannot be ignored. Thus, reforming propositions was essential before they could become norms.

The Imam also produced new jurisprudential propositions, such as the necessity of religion assuming governance. He viewed governance as inseparable from religion, stating that it is the practical philosophy of jurisprudence in all its dimensions. Propositions regarding the formation of government, its conditions, and the qualifications of the ruler were articulated in his discussions on the guardianship of the jurist. Another example is amr bil-maruf wa nahy anil-munkar (enjoining good and forbidding evil). While traditionally seen as an individual duty, the Imam emphasized that in some cases, it requires collective action, elevating it to a social responsibility, potentially for a city, nation, or the entire Islamic ummah. He also redefined what constitutes munkar (evil) and its priorities, addressing issues like the violation of Islamic laws or mismanagement of public wealth in his speeches, messages, and letters to the Shah, such as during the 1341 (1962) Provincial and Regional Associations controversy. He warned that when Islam’s principles or the Quran are at risk, taqiyya becomes forbidden, and proclaiming the truth becomes obligatory, regardless of the consequences. This redefined the boundaries of these propositions.

When such propositions became widespread norms, their transformative impact was evident.

Cadre-Building Another primary action was cadre-building through teaching circles. The Imam trained a wide range of students who later became carriers of his ideas and values, playing a significant role in norm-setting.

B. Secondary Actions

Thus far, I have discussed the Imam’s qualifications, characteristics, and primary actions for norm-setting. Due to time constraints, I presented these concisely, omitting many examples to maintain focus and utilize the limited time effectively. I first addressed his qualifications, as transforming an idea into a social norm requires such competencies to achieve meaningful change. I briefly covered his characteristics and outlined his primary actions, which served as preparations for norm-setting.

Norm-setting is a long-term, time-consuming, and gradual process. While we lack precise historical data on when practical steps began to turn these into public behavior, evidence suggests that from the early 1340s (1960s), the Imam actively entered this arena. Earlier actions, such as a letter from 1323 (1944) after Reza Shah’s fall urging people to rise for God to avoid a worse tyrant, indicate preliminary efforts, though widespread norm-setting began publicly in the 1340s. I refer to these as secondary actions, acknowledging that some may not strictly be methods. Whether norm-setting is a method or a process is not our focus here. The Imam employed several tactics or methods for norm-setting, which I will outline without strict prioritization:

Empathy and Identifying Societal Pains: The Imam prioritized empathy and solidarity with his audience, which required identifying societal pains and abnormalities. To replace an abnormality with a value or norm, one must first understand these issues and convince the audience that the proposed changes benefit them. The Imam excelled in identifying societal pain points, such as the gap between rich and poor, which he emphasized consistently. This was critical for norm-setting, as the nation needed to recognize its core issues.
Clear and Simple Communication (Balagh Mubin): The Imam used balagh mubin (clear proclamation), a Quranic principle of delivering messages clearly, simply, and fluently. While his scholarly discussions were technical, his public addresses were robust yet simple, enabling even the least educated in remote areas to grasp their depth. This clarity, devoid of complexity, was key to his success in connecting with the masses, even when discussing mystical concepts.
Focus on the Youth: The Imam placed special emphasis on the young generation as the driving force of social change. When asked, “Where are your soldiers?” he replied, “They are the ones in the cradles.” He viewed youth as energetic, hopeful, dynamic, and courageous, a focus that persisted throughout his activities and contributed to their widespread support for the revolution.
Engagement with Elites and Reference Groups: The Imam established effective communication with elites and reference groups, such as sending letters to scholars in various cities through his students, holding meetings with maraji’ taqlid, and rallying influential figures, including non-clerics, to support his norm-setting goals.
Addressing Opposition: The Imam confronted opposition to norm-setting, both within and outside the seminary, through advice, warnings, or sidelining opponents like court scholars. Recognizing and addressing these obstacles was crucial for advancing norm-setting.
Globalizing Norms: The Imam gave his propositions and values a global dimension, extending beyond Iran’s borders to the Islamic ummah and beyond. Issues like Palestine and combating oppression and arrogance reflected this universal vision, achieving widespread behavioral impact at certain points.
Strengthening Social Solidarity: The Imam emphasized social cohesion, opposing anything that weakened unity. His use of statements, messages, lessons, student networks, and direct engagement with scholars and the public reinforced this solidarity, viewing any divisive factor as an obstacle to norm-setting.

Conclusion

The tools, methods, and factors of norm-setting discussed are academically validated, despite the Imam lacking modern academic training in social sciences. His actions aligned with principles now recognized in academic analyses of norm-setting. These remarks focus on the norm-setter in the pre-revolutionary period. A pertinent question is whether norm-setting is easier with or without power. While governance offers tools like legislation, the Imam’s pre-revolutionary norm-setting, driven by patience and perseverance, was a challenging yet impactful endeavor that transformed societal norms.

However, preserving these norms raises further questions: Are the methods for creating and sustaining norms the same? This requires further exploration. I apologize for taking the time of those present and online. I hope you forgive my shortcomings, and I remain at your service.

Session Moderator: We sincerely thank His Eminence Ayatullah Nur Mufidi for his valuable remarks. For those present in the session, if you have any questions, we are at your service. Please proceed.

Question: I am grateful for Your Eminence’s insightful remarks. The topic was challenging and, to my knowledge, either has not been previously addressed or I am unaware of such discussions. The subject itself is innovative, as presented by Your Eminence. I have two questions regarding your remarks.

Firstly, given your association with Imam Khomeini’s companions before the revolution (which is the focus of our discussion) and the Imam’s household, a question arises: Were the methods you described as secondary actions deliberately planned by the late Imam? Did he dedicate time to designing a roadmap beforehand, as per the Quranic verse, “Stand up for Allah in pairs and individually, then reflect” (Quran 34:46)? Or did he devise strategies as situations arose? From the memoirs of his companions, I have not come across instances where he held sessions to meticulously plan sequential actions. It is often mentioned that he took actions like writing letters to scholars in various cities or addressing the issue of Palestine. Was there a comprehensive plan guiding these actions, or were they situational?

Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi: In my view, there is no contradiction between these perspectives. I will respond briefly. Undoubtedly, the Imam’s ultimate goal was clear from the outset. Whether he would achieve it was not his primary concern. He felt a duty to prevent deviations, violations of Islamic laws, squandering of public wealth, and damage to the dignity of Muslims. He acted based on circumstances as they arose, driven by this sense of duty. The idea of governance and the belief that Islam cannot achieve its ultimate purpose without it were firmly in his mind, and he strove toward that goal. However, I do not believe he had a detailed, step-by-step plan mapped out in advance. He employed conventional methods that were customary both historically and in his time.

The key point is that he knew focusing solely on elites was insufficient; a broader public movement was necessary. This understanding stemmed from historical experience. For instance, norm-setting often requires creating archetypes. The Quran introduces archetypes, and the Imam, trained in its teachings, did the same. He highlighted figures like Modarres as archetypes, not through deliberate planning but as an organic part of his approach. Modarres was a figure he believed needed prominence. Thus, at a macro level, he had a clear destination and initiated this movement, but there is no evidence of a detailed plan for every issue. Decisions were made based on circumstances, supported by his personal characteristics, qualifications, and divine assistance.

Question: I have another question. You emphasized a crucial point in discussing secondary actions, both at the beginning and end: strengthening social solidarity and empathizing with the audience and norm-receivers. We have heard both perspectives from the late Imam, with supporting evidence. Sometimes, he acted out of duty without regard for outcomes, stating repeatedly, “We are tasked with duty, not results.” On the other hand, a key difference between him and some of his students, like the late Mr. Motahhari or Mr. Beheshti, compared to others, is their efforts to raise public awareness and gain public support. Evidence exists for both approaches. For example, regarding the issue of mandatory hijab in our country, where some opposition exists, how do you think the Imam would have acted if he were present? His fatwa clearly mandates hijab in an Islamic society. Would he have disregarded opposition and enforced Sharia, or would he have waited for conditions to align and for the majority to support him before acting?

Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi: As you know, we have discussed the issue of mandatory hijab, and it is currently being prepared for publication, which stands on its own. However, my general understanding is that while the Imam strongly emphasized implementing Sharia rulings and did not tolerate laxity, he also considered social realities. We have seen both aspects in his approach, indicating that situational conditions are critical for decision-making. For instance, regarding the punishment of stoning, the late Mr. Ardebili recounted that they approached the Imam, explaining the negative repercussions of implementing it. The Imam advised against it. Does this mean that pausing a Sharia ruling due to secondary considerations or consequences reflects negligence? Conversely, in less severe cases, the Imam took a firm stance. It depends on the context.

For someone like the Imam, who was deeply concerned with the public interest, the welfare of Islam, and the Muslim community, these factors were weighed together, and his opinions were based on broader considerations. Social solidarity is one such factor, valued in itself but not to the extent of abandoning an essential Islamic principle or endangering the foundation of Islam. He would never compromise a core Islamic principle for the sake of social cohesion. The approach varies by situation and context.

Question: I believe the matter is quite the opposite. I think the Imam opposed norm-setting until the revolution’s victory. Everything you described was, in fact, geared toward achieving victory, meaning creating cohesion and a movement toward governance. He was not focused on norm-setting for any specific jurisprudential ruling.

Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi: Wait a moment. Let me ask you a question. You say the Imam opposed norm-setting?

Questioner: Yes, he was opposed.

Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi: Could the Imam have established governance without transforming those propositions into norms? Especially since his approach differed from that of armed revolutionary groups, focusing instead on a popular movement. My question is: Could someone like him keep his greatest ideas confined to his mind, or was he striving to turn them into widespread beliefs and behaviors in society? Even if he had not succeeded, the fact that the public exhibited the actions and reactions he intended meant he had achieved part of his goal. For someone raising the banner of religion and calling people to faith, their objectives must, at least in part, become both a mental belief and a public behavior in society. (I’m not sure if the term “mental norms” is accurate.) This is undeniable.

Questioner: My perception of the Imam’s movement is that it revolves around a single central theme: governance. Before the revolution, this manifested as “the Shah must go”; after the revolution, it was “preserving the system is the most obligatory duty.” If you were to identify two key indicators, the Imam, after 1341 (1962)—and even before, during Ayatullah Borujerdi’s time—focused solely on governance. Anything that hindered or slowed this goal, he opposed or at least did not support, even if it was a religious matter. For example, if someone organized a congregational prayer that delayed the Islamic revolution by a year, the Imam would not support it.

Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi: How does this relate to the issue?

Questioner: This means he was not norm-setting but was only norm-setting for one thing: the struggle. Evidence includes his efforts to establish unity within the seminary first. It is widely acknowledged—by figures like Mr. Motahhari and Mr. Montazeri—that the Imam played a key role in bringing Ayatullah Borujerdi to Qom. After Borujerdi’s passing, his first action was to ensure a single marja’ emerged, approaching figures like Mr. Khansari or Mr. Milani. He did not align with groups like the Hojjatiyeh Association, even instructing that no funds be given to them. He avoided public criticism but privately distanced himself. The Imam did not draw lines with anyone before the revolution—whether the Hojjatiyeh, nationalists, Dr. Shariati, the Shahid Javid controversy, or Mr. Sayyid Mohammad Rouhani—despite their causing societal disputes. He remained silent, sometimes advising others to do the same. For instance, when condolences were offered for Dr. Shariati’s passing, he simply thanked them. During the Shahid Javid uproar, which stirred all of Qom over Imam Hussein, he said nothing. Post-revolution, however, he drew clear lines with everyone. Why? Because his focus was on the revolution’s victory. The Hojjatiyeh fought Baha’is, which was not wrong, but the Imam saw it as disrupting his work. Unlike other maraji’ who established institutions, schools, or publications, the Imam did none of this, despite having capable people and resources. His focus was on unity for the sake of the struggle.

The questioner then recounts a story from the late Mr. Ferdowsi, former Friday prayer leader of Tabas, about a visit by Mr. Banisadr to Najaf. Banisadr dismissed most scholars, except Sayyid Baqir Sadr, but was convinced to meet Ayatullah Sistani, who critiqued his unpublished book. Sistani found a passage suggesting that once victory was achieved, clerics would be sidelined. The Imam, aware of Banisadr’s intentions, prioritized the struggle, hoping for his reform, and avoided confrontation.

Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi: Several issues seem conflated here. The claim that the Imam’s sole focus before the revolution was governance is valid to an extent, as he prioritized addressing the root of corruption over superficial issues. He frequently used terms like “cutting off the source of corruption” (qat’ maddat al-fasad) or “uprooting corruption” (hasm maddat al-fasad) in his scholarly discussions. He approached the Pahlavi regime with a deep, root-focused perspective, not merely advocating for the Shah’s removal to assume power himself. Initially, he offered advice, addressing the Shah as “His Majesty” in early letters, such as during the Provincial and Regional Associations issue in 1341 (1962), urging him to reverse harmful policies. The Imam’s distinction was his focus on root causes.

Moreover, why did he never permit armed struggle, despite some scholars issuing fatwas for assassinations or targeting regime figures? Such actions could have been impactful, yet he forbade them. He believed that without transforming the populace, no lasting change was possible. The examples you cited support my argument that the Imam was intensely focused on norm-setting. Had he not been, he might have endorsed armed struggle or pursued superficial actions like others. He concentrated his energy on reforming the roots. Thus, your points align with mine—there is no contradiction. His avoidance of anything that harmed unity was a norm-setting method. If his primary goal was governance, it could not be achieved without norm-setting. Post-revolutionary dynamics involve different factors that require case-by-case analysis of individuals and groups.

Proposal There is no doubt that parts of religion and jurisprudence were already societal norms before the revolution. The specific question is: Which non-normative jurisprudential rulings did the Imam promote to become norms? Which overlooked aspects of jurisprudence did he champion? I propose that these propositions be identified and studied.

Part of the Imam’s work was adaptation—applying existing propositions to contemporary conditions. For example, the obligation to combat oppression is a universal principle, not only religious but rational, shared across nations. Even the Pahlavi regime claimed to oppose oppression. However, the Imam applied this principle directly to the regime. In religious gatherings, oppression was often limited to figures like Yazid, who martyred Imam Hussein, as if no other oppressors existed. The Imam’s courage in redefining and applying such clear propositions, like combating oppression, to the regime was significant and rare.

Additionally, he reformed or produced propositions, both theological and jurisprudential, such as the inseparability of religion and politics. At the time, those who distanced themselves from politics were considered more pious, but the Imam corrected this notion. These propositions, both theological and jurisprudential, should be systematically identified.

Session Moderator: Many thanks for the insightful remarks of Ayatullah Nur Mufidi and the esteemed attendees. We hope these discussions have been beneficial. May God elevate the soul of the late Imam during this anniversary of his demise.