Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Nourmifidi in an Exclusive Interview with Jamaran: Grand Ayatollah Safi Golpayegani Believed in the Presence of Islam in the Sphere of Governance and Society

Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Nourmifidi, professor of advanced jurisprudence and principles at the Qom Seminary, spoke to Jamaran regarding Grand Ayatollah Safi Golpayegani: “He believed in the presence of religion in the political and social spheres during the era of occultation, and this is highly important; some might assume that the late Grand Ayatollah Safi did not attach much importance to this matter. He has a treatise titled ‘Risalah fi Darurat Wujud al-Hukumah aw Wilayat al-Faqih fi ‘Asr al-Ghaybah’ [Treatise on the Necessity of the Existence of Government or the Guardianship of the Jurist during the Era of Occultation] in which he seeks to prove that during the era of occultation, an Islamic government must be formed and the jurist possesses guardianship during this period. Now, I am not concerned with the details of its scope and level; ultimately, he believed in the presence of Islam in the sphere of governance and society.”

Jamaran News Agency: The Doyen of the Maraji’, Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Lotfollah Safi Golpayegani, passed away a few days ago. One of his political stances in recent months concerning “the necessity of relations with the world” had caused his statements to receive more media attention than some other issues. But apart from those statements, what was his political and jurisprudential conduct? What was his view regarding the relationship between the seminary and the system of the Islamic Republic? And what was the reason behind his stances in defense of the household of the Imam, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, and others?

To answer questions of this nature, we conducted an interview with Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Nourmifidi, professor of advanced jurisprudence and principles at the Qom Seminary.

The transcript of the interview conducted by the Jamaran reporter with him follows below:

I express my condolences on the tragic demise of the grand Marja’, Grand Ayatollah Safi. We are eager to hear your insights regarding his personality and his various scientific, moral, and political dimensions, his accompaniment of the Imam and the movement, his tenure as the head of the Guardian Council, and his stance after the demise of the Imam.

Firstly, I offer my condolences on the demise of Grand Ayatollah Safi Golpayegani, whose passing is indeed an irreparable loss for the Shi’a community, the clergy, and the seminaries. He was the Shaykh al-Maraji’ (Doyen of the Religious Authorities) and possessed unique scientific and moral qualities. Indeed, his sincerity and warmth attracted everyone and left a deep impact on people.

Regarding his scientific standing and his long history in this arena, I can say that until the final moments of his life, he did not waste a single opportunity for study, writing, and teaching. I occasionally heard that he possessed and studied books published in the seminary that many students had not even heard of. He had an insatiable thirst for reading; it is highly significant for someone to maintain this enthusiasm at such an advanced age. For a young person, such enthusiasm is natural; but to have such a passion for study and reading at this age, with all the physical hardships that accompany it, is, in my view, truly unique.

His talent and genius in scientific matters were renowned from the very beginning. His memory was extraordinary; sometimes we would visit him, and he would narrate events from seventy or eighty years ago with precise details—details that even some of those who were present in those events could not recall. It frequently happened that someone would recite a poem in his presence—whether in Persian or Arabic—and he would accompany them, reciting those poems from memory. He possessed an extraordinary memory. He also had a poetic taste and composed beautiful poems. Of course, this might be somewhat hereditary, as both his father and mother were poets, and both were accomplished and cultured individuals.

Alongside these qualities, his inner purity, moral virtues, and sincerity were truly unique. There was absolutely no difference in his behavior and conduct before and after achieving the status of Marja’iyyah; rather, he behaved even more humbly. Recently, about a month ago, I had the honor of visiting him along with my respected father. He received us with great warmth and humility, showing immense kindness and affection. Indeed, one would sometimes feel humbled by the humility he showed, particularly toward the Sadat (descendants of the Prophet); he paid great attention and sensitivity to this matter.

The issues of the Islamic world and relations with the religious and scientific centers of the Islamic world were highly important to him. He emphasized that the seminary must be connected with the scientific and religious centers of the Islamic world. Some time ago, when the High Council of the Seminary visited him, I noticed that one of the points he mentioned was emphasizing the connection of the seminary with the Islamic world, especially Egypt and Al-Azhar. I heard that he had said: “During the time of the Grand Master, the late Grand Ayatollah Boroujerdi, I was in contact with some of the professors of Al-Azhar, and this is a highly important necessity for the seminary.” He mentioned this about a month ago. He maintained this connection himself and encouraged others and those in charge to do the same, asking them to expand these relations.

It is clear that these scientific interactions can both influence them and be beneficial for us. It is an important dimension for a Marja’ of Taqleed to pay such close attention to these relations.

Paying attention to the problems and concerns of the people was another dimension of the character of this noble Marja’. Throughout history, one of the advantages of the clergy has always been that they served as the backer and supporter of the people, striving as much as they could to resolve the people’s problems. The late Ayatollah Safi, apart from the practical actions he took within his capacity for this purpose, conveyed these problems and concerns to the officials either privately as reminders or publicly as recommendations.

At the same time, he believed in the presence of religion in the political and social spheres during the era of occultation, and this is highly important; some might assume that the late Grand Ayatollah Safi did not attach much importance to this matter. He has a treatise titled ‘Risalah fi Darurat Wujud al-Hukumah aw Wilayat al-Faqih fi ‘Asr al-Ghaybah’ in which he seeks to prove that during the era of occultation, an Islamic government must be formed and the jurist possesses guardianship during this period. Now, I am not concerned with the details of its scope and level; ultimately, he believed in the presence of Islam in the sphere of governance and society, albeit with certain perspectives that I will explain if the opportunity arises.

Based on this, I believe that he accompanied the Imam (ra) from before the Revolution; he was always a supporter and backer of the general path of the movement of the Imam (ra) and the people. After the Revolution, we witnessed that this extended beyond words and theories, and he practically played a role in some of the important positions where he could be influential.

He served in the Assembly of Experts for the Constitution and subsequently served as the Secretary of the Guardian Council for about eight years. This was solely to help consolidate and support the system. Therefore, overall, he was a well-rounded and comprehensive personality; his mastery over various sciences was remarkable. Visiting him was truly beneficial; he was highly skilled in jurisprudence, principles, theology (kalam), hadith, literature, and history.

May God rest his soul; since the moment I heard this news, I have not been able to console myself, unless God grants relief and bestows patience for this tragedy upon everyone.

So you are saying that his affection for Hazrat Imam and the movement, as well as his support for the system and the Revolution both before and after, were based on his jurisprudential thoughts and religious texts?

Absolutely. He believed in this matter, and based on this, he entered the arena of accompanying the Revolution and the system. Of course, it should also be noted that in some areas, he may have had differences of opinion with some; he held specific views on certain matters that there is no opportunity to address now, but even in those cases, he never spoke in a way that would weaken the system or the leadership during the time of the Imam or after him, nor did he commit any action in this regard. He always preserved the sanctity of the Imam and the Leadership, while simultaneously offering his recommendations, reminders, and advice to the system.

There is a point in his life where in some areas we see him as very firm, or even “traditional” in the view of a segment of society; particularly on the issue of women and their entry into society, or that women should not ride bicycles, or similar issues that you might be more aware of. We see that Ayatollah Safi expresses his stance very firmly, even though that stance may not align with the tastes of a segment of our society; he stands by his stance without any change or opportunism. That is, he does not prohibit something publicly while behaving differently in practice. How do you view this; was it based on his genuine belief and sincerity?

Indeed, we can say that he had a deep, burning concern for religion (dard-e din); meaning, he was perhaps among the most deeply concerned personalities regarding religion, the school of the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.), and their teachings. You have witnessed his love and affection for the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.); how he shed tears and wept in gatherings where the Ahl al-Bayt were mentioned, particularly in mourning ceremonies (rowzah). Indeed, he possessed such a concern regarding the school of the Ahl al-Bayt, and particularly Hazrat Wali al-Asr (may Allah hasten his reappearance), that if he found something contrary to it, he could not remain silent. Therefore, without a doubt, whatever he expressed regarding religious, social, and political affairs stemmed from this very concern.

However, regarding the cases you mentioned, I must explain that the crux of the matter is that since these issues were typically associated with certain negative consequences and corruptions, he was concerned about those natural consequences, which past experiences often validated.

I recall that Mr. Qalibaf, when he was the Chief of Police, mentioned on one occasion—and I heard it from him—that he had visited Ayatollah Safi. There, he raised the issue of employing female police officers. He said: “When I explained the employment of female police officers and its necessity to him, he stated that this is a very good initiative, only emphasizing the observation of Shari’ah limits.”

Sometimes, without preparations, prerequisites, and explanations, issues are raised and implemented in a way that does not alleviate these concerns; whereas at other times, these issues are explained in a way that outlines the necessities and needs, showing what would happen if they did not exist, and the necessary arrangements are made in a way that does not ignore Shari’ah rulings. These two approaches are vastly different. He said that Ayatollah Safi warmly welcomed the employment of female police officers, but based on the point I mentioned—that he had a concern for religion, and protecting the beliefs of the people and observing the Shari’ah limits was of paramount importance to him—he offered certain recommendations.

In any case, this caution caused him to maintain these vigils. I do not wish to address specific cases; ultimately, this is open to discussion in various subjects, but without a doubt, it stemmed from the very matter I mentioned: his concern for religion and that all these affairs are a prelude to implementing the rulings of the Shari’ah. Naturally, he possessed these sensitivities; but as I said, despite all of this, he was extremely careful that the system should not be weakened, that the sanctity of the Leadership and the branches of the state be preserved, and that the enemies should not exploit these matters.

Many of the prominent figures who associated with him, like yourself, when pointing to one of his important views, refer to the issue of intellectual independence and the view he held regarding the seminaries—that they must remain independent. Do you consider this characteristic to be his most prominent trait? If so, why? And what was the independent seminary he envisioned?

I cannot say that this was his single most prominent characteristic, as he possessed various dimensions of excellence, each of which is prominent in its own context; we cannot say that this was his most prominent view. In the current circumstances, some might assume that this is the most prominent. However, I want to speak generally: there are different interpretations of the concept of the “independence of the seminary,” and following that, I will explain what the late Grand Ayatollah Safi meant by this issue, based on my own understanding.

First Group: Some say the seminary must be independent, but they intend something else: “A word of truth by which falsehood is intended” (kalamat haqqin yuradu biha al-batil). They expect the seminary to separate its path from the Revolution and the system and stand in opposition to it; as I mentioned, this is a word of truth by which falsehood is intended.
Second Group: The interpretation of another group is that the seminary should be separated from the affairs of the Revolution and the system in the sense of being indifferent and unconcerned; not that they say the seminary should oppose the system like the first group, but rather they say that the seminary should mind its own business and have nothing to do with these affairs. My belief is that this is neither compatible with religious teachings nor with what we understood from the school of the Imam, and certainly this was not what Ayatollah Safi meant either.
Third Group (Ayatollah Safi’s View): This interpretation is that the seminary stands as the “mother” of the Revolution and the system. That is, the seminary must be like a mother who is concerned for her child; a mother supports, protects, and backs her child, helping them whenever they need help. However, whenever the child falls ill, she treats them. The seminary must be like this toward the system; meaning, it must support the system and the Revolution, while simultaneously remaining vigilant against harms and defects, seeking to cure diseases, problems, and harms so that, God forbid, these diseases do not spread and envelop everything.
Fourth Group: Some say that the independence of the seminary has no meaning whatsoever; more precisely, regarding the relationship between the seminary and the system, they say the seminary must be entirely subordinate to the system. What does being entirely subordinate mean? It means that whatever happens—correct or incorrect—the seminary must endorse it one hundred percent. Some even go beyond this and expect the seminary to enter into political factionalism and partisan disputes in a specific, literal manner.

I believe that neither the Imam (ra), nor the Supreme Leader, nor our revolutionary Maraji’ such as Ayatollah Makarem and Ayatollah Nouri accept this fourth view. These prominent figures also express problems sometimes publicly and sometimes privately. Perhaps this fourth interpretation or the understanding held by this group belongs to individuals who think superficially.

In my view, the late Grand Ayatollah Safi held the third interpretation of the seminary’s independence. I mentioned that the independence of the seminary is a homonym from which various meanings are intended; for instance, some cite the statements of Ayatollah Safi to conclude that he believed in the independence of the seminary, but in reality, they want to use this citation to conclude that the seminary should become indifferent and non-political. Or another group wants to conclude that, God forbid, the seminary must stand against the system. This is certainly not the case; I believe the Imam (ra) himself held this very belief.

What the Imam did was unique in the history of the Shi’a clergy; the Imam brought a precious gift for the Iranian nation, the protection and preservation of which is the responsibility of everyone. Everyone must strive to preserve this heritage. Preserving this heritage lies in seeing both the strengths and the weaknesses. If, God forbid, we close our eyes to the weaknesses, we may face conditions where we cannot solve the problems. Of course, one must not lose hope; being despairing is incorrect. Everyone must remain hopeful and stand hand in hand. The fact that the Supreme Leader also constantly emphasizes that the people must not be made to despair of the future is an entirely clear matter that requires no argument, because if a nation despairs of its future, even if they possess many strengths, they will certainly reach nowhere.

The late Ayatollah Safi supported the household of the Imam, and specifically the legacy of the Imam [Ayatollah Seyyed Hassan Khomeini] in the events that occurred. What is your view on this?

Fairness (insaf) is highly important in all matters. The reality is that we occasionally witness unfairness from some quarters that is incompatible with the logic of religion and the Ahl al-Bayt. I am not referring to any specific person or group. Unfortunately, this unfairness is committed by all sides and is not limited to a specific group. The fact that numerous narrations from the Noble Prophet (PBUH) and Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.) recommend fairness is highly remarkable. Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.), in a narration to one of his governors, states: “Even if the majority of the people do not act with fairness, you must treat the people with fairness.” Fairness is a highly important matter; unfortunately, some of our problems stem from the fact that we do not maintain fairness regarding issues and individuals.

I think one of the prominent characteristics of the late Grand Ayatollah Safi was his fairness. For instance, while he had serious criticisms of the late Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani—and I had personally heard of a few instances—during the attacks directed at the late Mr. Hashemi, he strived to preserve his sanctity and defend him in a way. This is practical fairness; this is in accordance with the conduct and character of the Ahl al-Bayt. There is no reason that if we have criticisms of someone, we should ignore all their positive aspects. Criticism has its place, but fairness also dictates that the positive points of individuals be seen.

In the events related to the household of the Imam and the attacks directed at the legacy of the Imam, Ayatollah Haj Seyyed Hassan Khomeini, several dimensions were considered by Ayatollah Safi. On one hand, I believe that this highly important moral foundation caused him to adopt that behavior. On the other hand, the respect he held for his own professors, past scholars, the households of past scholars, the person of the Imam, and the household of the Imam caused him to perform that veneration, which was indeed a veneration of the Imam himself. He was highly committed to preserving the sanctity of the households of scholars and Maraji’ of Taqleed.

It is highly important for someone in this position to preserve the sanctity of the position of the Marja’iyyah and the household of the Marja’iyyah. Although there may be flaws in some of these households, he believed that the sanctity and respect of this position must be preserved in society. Because if the sanctity of these households and positions is damaged, then it is unknown what others will do.

I believe he observed this very same matter regarding everyone, and regarding the Supreme Leader, ensuring that the sanctity of the position of Leadership is completely preserved. He might have had objections on certain matters, as the Leadership also noted in their condolence message that he informed and benefited them with his viewpoints. He conveyed the points, but he did not make a public fanfare out of them. He preserved the sanctities; in my view, this is a matter that we must all try to adhere to.

May Almighty God grant him His mercy, and by His grace, compensate for this breach and void that has occurred in the Shi’a world and the seminaries.