Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi in an Interview with Harim-e Imam Journal: The Clergy Is the Axis of Cultural Guidance

Are the clergy the sole leverage for changing and directing culture in society? In other words, to what extent is the role and influence of a cleric in the culture of a society?

To consider the clergy (ruhaniyyat) as the sole axis of cultural guidance is acceptable in one sense and unacceptable in another. Rather than the phrasing you used, I would express it as follows: the clergy is the axis of cultural guidance, but they are not the sole tool of guidance, nor are they the only culture-making current.

The cultural influence and culture-making of the clergy occurs in two ways: sometimes directly, and sometimes indirectly. This is in light of the inherent duty of the clergy, which is the continuation of the mission of the prophets (anbiya) and steering the people toward the supreme destination of humanity and human perfections—which is precisely the work of the prophets, and for this reason, they were named the inheritors of the prophets (warithan al-anbiya).

In any case, if the people are to be guided toward this destination, certain preliminaries are required. These preliminaries exist both in the theoretical dimension and in the practical domain. Acquiring familiarity with divine and religious teachings (ma’arif) follows a specific path; whoever wishes to guide the people toward that destination must be familiar with these teachings.

What domains do Islamic and religious teachings encompass, and where does the clergy stand in relation to them?

Naturally, the clergy study in an environment where they acquire these teachings. Now, when I speak of divine and religious teachings, I have in mind a general meaning that encompasses beliefs (i’tiqadat), rulings (ahkam), and ethics (akhlaqiyyat); meaning it covers all aspects and dimensions.

Therefore, since the clergy wish to show the roadmap to the people, they must be aware of this map. Furthermore, in the seminaries of religious sciences, such a map is intended to be prepared and presented. Thus, from a theoretical perspective, this framework is prepared within the path of the clergy; however, this alone is not sufficient, because alongside this, the driving force and agent must also exist. This means that in the practical dimension, the cleric must have walked the path himself, being a traveler of spiritual wayfaring (sayr wa suluk) along this path. On this basis, we can say that the clergy is the axis of cultural guidance, and we define the destination in cultural guidance as human salvation and human perfections.

Is this why you believe the clergy plays a pivotal, enduring, and fundamental role?

Obviously, the clergy plays a pivotal role along this path. This cannot be expected of others; and when I express this, I do not mean the clerical class (sinf) alone, but rather, anyone who has acquired these teachings and acted upon them possesses the qualification for cultural guidance.

The clergy, by virtue of the fact that its inherent duty is studying these teachings, acting upon them, and presenting them to the people, plays a pivotal role. This is the direct influence.

Their indirect influence is that the currents productive of culture, the culture-makers, and the cultural guides in various fields of culture, if they fall under the influence of this guidance, will naturally be able to provide correct guidance in their respective work domains. Therefore, I believe that the clergy plays a pivotal role in cultural guidance, albeit conditionally (bi-shartiha wa shurutiha); meaning this is not absolute. Of course, I do not mean every cleric; I mean the authentic clergy, possessing those characteristics I mentioned, plays a pivotal role and can exert a direct and immediate influence on the general public, as well as an indirect influence in the sense of training individuals in various fields of culture so that the specialists of each field are placed under the training of the clergy.

Do you consider the efficacy of the clergy in contemporary culture to be sufficient? Have they been, and are they, successful in institutionalizing religious culture?

The efficacy of the clergy in contemporary culture and their success can be viewed in terms of objective, external reality and what has actually occurred so far; or the meaning can be whether this capability exists in principle or not.

In the first dimension, in my view, the prerequisite (muqtadi) for the success of the clergy is prepared, but it has conditions. If the clergy is to be successful, in truth, in addition to the primary responsibilities they bear, they must strive in two directions: first, toward a content-based understanding of the time, the epoch, and contemporary transformations; second, familiarity with the frameworks that exist in this era.

If the cleric enjoys comprehensiveness in understanding divine teachings, does not become one-dimensional, and does not possess a caricaturish, partial, or fragmentary perception of Islamic teachings, he will succeed. If I wish to present an example of a cleric possessing a comprehensive understanding in recent times, I can mention Martyr Mutahhari.

The reason Imam Khomeini approved of Martyr Mutahhari absolutely was truly because Mutahhari viewed the collection of teachings systematically, established a logical connection between the components of this epistemic system, and was able to present this systematic collection excellently. He did not disproportionately highlight a portion of the teachings to the detriment of another portion. This is truly the most important characteristic of Martyr Mutahhari, such that in whatever field he enters, one senses that it is definable within that epistemic system. One rarely encounters contradictions between the various intellectual dimensions of Mr. Mutahhari.

In addition to this understanding, recognizing the nature of temporal transformations was highly critical.

Could you explain this point in more detail; what does it mean?

Yes. For example, some currently assume that being “up-to-date” means merely being familiar with tools. Consequently, you see them utilizing modern tools, but they do not achieve success, because they have fundamentally failed to understand the nature of this time, the relations governing this time, and the transformations of this era. Understanding the transformations of any time takes precedence over utilizing the tools of that time.

This is the main problem if the clergy is to be successful; they possess this capability. In terms of teachings, we have no deficiency whatsoever, and I declare this with certainty. However, the condition is that we must synthesize these teachings with the understanding of the time and the epoch.

Understanding the time is in itself a deep concept:

Al-‘alimu bi-zamanih la tahjumu ‘alayhi al-lawabis;
“One who is knowledgeable of his time is not assaulted by confusion.”

This time is not merely seeing what people travel with, or where they go. It is true that the complex relations of societies have changed, the nature of human relations, the nature of economic relations, and the nature of political relations have changed. The subject of the sciences, and particularly the axis of the humanities, has become very different from the past. Indeed, understanding this issue is highly critical, and in my view, we have many difficulties in this field.

As for the other aspect—whether this success has actually occurred or not—I can say that a portion of the clergy has achieved this success, but another portion has not. Meaning, as a whole, many difficulties exist in all three dimensions: a portion of the issues stems from a systematic epistemic deficiency, a portion of the clergy has been unable to recognize these transformations, and a portion did not utilize these tools