Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Nourmifidi in an Interview with Harim-e Imam Weekly: Textbooks Must Be Reformed, but Within the Framework of the Seminary’s Authentic Traditions

The principle of change based on emergencies, needs, requirements of the time, and the assessment of prominent scholars is an issue that has historical precedent.
I have no doubt that the concern of the officials and directors of the seminary is the reform of affairs and the elevation of the seminary’s scientific level.
The progress of jurisprudence and the progress of principles, which form the foundation of the seminary, are linked to past heritage while simultaneously paying attention to contemporary issues.

Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Nourmifidi is a professor of advanced lectures (Kharij) on Fiqh and Usul at the Qom Seminary and the director of the Contemporary Jurisprudential Research Institute. To date, numerous works of his have been published in various fields of jurisprudence, principles, exegesis, theology, philosophy, and social and political subjects. In an interview with Harim-e Imam, while valuing changes appropriate to the times, he raised several key points regarding the plan for reforming and scoping seminary textbooks and the serious objections directed at it.

Harim-e Imam: As you are aware, recently the Educational Deputy of the Seminaries and the Management Center implemented a plan known as the reform and scoping of textbooks. Various viewpoints have been raised in agreement and opposition to this plan. We are eager to know your perspective in this regard. As a first question, what is your view on the principle of change in textbooks, and do you feel a necessity for it?

Answer: In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. I also thank you. Generally, if the history of changes in the textbooks of the seminaries is examined, we see that textbooks have changed periodically. The books taught at various levels of the seminary in the past have changed several times. These changes have occurred not only within the scope of textbooks, but also regarding the educational stages and levels. Therefore, the principle of change based on emergencies, needs, requirements of the time, and the assessment of prominent scholars is an issue that has historical precedent.

However, what is important is that a series of matters have existed as authentic traditions of the seminary since ancient times, which we must preserve under all circumstances. These traditions are the pillars of the sublime educational and ethical system of the seminary: for instance, pre-class study, post-class review, collaborative discussion (mubahathah), referring to supplementary books, and research. Beside these, the free choice of professors, the intimacy and friendship between professor and student, monitoring scientific and moral progress, and supporting students through life difficulties are among the most important of these traditions. Indeed, when these are presented to the world, they are evaluated as the most advanced and comprehensive educational and ethical systems.

Another matter that has received great attention in the seminaries in the past is strengthening the power of thought, ijtihad, and derivation in various fields of Islamic sciences, especially Fiqh. Students of religious sciences must be trained in such a way that they do not merely carry memorized information, but rather, like a spring, possess a bubbling flow of thought, intellect, and knowledge. Alongside these, commitment to remaining up-to-date and familiar with intellectual developments can also be considered among the prominent components of the seminaries (at least during certain eras).

On this basis, any change must look to these authentic traditions of the seminary. Before anything else, we must strive to preserve these authentic traditions. If we want to elevate the scientific caliber of the students and harmonize them with the needs of the time, our entire concern must be focused on this matter, and all planning and changes must lead to strengthening these positive aspects of the seminary’s educational system.

But with immense regret, it must be said that these traditions are currently weakening, and this has various causes and factors that must be examined in their proper place. Generally, what was once the source of pride for the seminaries is heading toward laxity. This must be strengthened in the first degree; any change and program must help strengthen these authentic traditions.

Another point is that we must view textbook reform as a part of a macro-educational program. The educational system has various components, one of which is textbooks. Therefore, we must consider change within a comprehensive, forward-looking, and macro-program, and take into account the harmony between its components so that some parts do not negate others.

Another matter that seems necessary to address here is that if a textbook that has been common in the seminaries for many years is to be changed, this change must certainly be accompanied by resolving the flaws of the previous textbooks and must incorporate distinct advantages in the new textbooks. Therefore, change is not an end in itself; transformation and reform must be positive. Thus, it is highly important what direction this change takes and whether the replacements for the current textbooks truly possess these characteristics and advantages so that we can collectively evaluate this replacement as positive or not.

Therefore, the principle of change is something that has historical precedent, and if it is carried out for the purpose of resolving flaws and achieving completion, it is indeed very good, and I do not think anyone would turn away from it—especially given the current circumstances and era in which we live and the breadth of new issues and topics which may dictate such a necessity. In any case, this kubra (major premise) is endorsed by everyone; the debate and disagreement lie in the sughra (minor premise) and its application, and what the mechanism of change should be and through what process it should occur.

Harim-e Imam: What is your assessment of this plan, and what objections do you find in it?

Answer: In my view, this plan has several flaws from different angles and may need to be revised. I have no doubt that the concern of the officials and directors of the seminary is the reform of affairs and the elevation of the seminary’s scientific level. They possess a sacred motivation in this program, and their concerns are understandable to us, and we appreciate and thank them for their efforts.

However, the issue is that what has been proposed as a replacement for the current textbooks does not, in our view, possess sufficient weight for replacement. What has made Rasa’il, Makasib, and Kifayah dominant over the seminaries for many years and placed them as the main textbooks—aside from the strength of their authors’ foundations, the solidity of their jurisprudential and principled thoughts, and their status as founders of schools of thought—is the depth of their content and the method that the late Sheikh Ansari and the late Akhund [Khorasani] adopted in analyzing subjects, which directly helps the scientific training of students and strengthens their power of ijtihad and thought.

Today, we may encounter very good writings and publications, and there may even be innovations in them. There are currently many books and articles written on various subjects whose authors have labored extensively, and they are indeed highly useful. However, the issue is: does every writing by anyone, even if good and useful, possess the capability of becoming a textbook? Are these authors founders of a specific school of thought? Are their thoughts solid enough and established upon firm foundations? Does their method help strengthen the capacity for ijtihad, or is it merely the presentation of a thought and opinion? Truly, comparing these is a comparison of two entirely different things.

Of course, regarding the Halqaat of Martyr Sadr, I believe it possesses notable advantages. This book truly gives the student a comprehensive and specific view of the science of principles, and they acquire insights that they might not achieve even after years. Some of these Halqaat must indeed be studied, but replacing Kifayah with the Third Halqah is problematic from several angles.

What seems necessary to note is that, first of all, the omission of certain books and certain parts of these books requires further examination. If a scope is to be omitted, where should it be? Of course, some say that these books must be studied from cover to cover; no, it is not necessary for the entire book to be studied with a professor from beginning to end. Some of the grand masters and prominent figures, such as Imam Khomeini, did not study a book from cover to cover with a professor; they studied certain parts with a professor, and then read the rest on their own (of course, this has a condition: that the student acquires the skill and method of utilizing the book).

In any case, what has made these books excellent are those characteristics; if we find those characteristics in any new book, then indeed, there is no barrier to it. For instance, at the elementary level (Muqaddamat), in the past in the seminaries of Iran, they studied Jami’ al-Muqaddamat, and in Najaf, they studied Sharh Ibn ‘Aqil and Qatr al-Nada. Some of these books were studied, though Sharh Ibn ‘Aqil was also studied here. Or, for example, when the book Sarf-e Sadeh arrived, it was accepted because this book indeed expressed the same content in a new format, order, and style, and no one opposed it, and it was recognized at least by a portion of the seminary. This change was implemented in the elementary stage.

However, the intermediate and advanced level (Sath) is different. In the Sath lectures, a course of Usul is studied in an abbreviated manner, a portion of Usul in a semi-detailed manner, a course of Fiqh in a semi-reasoned manner, and a portion of Fiqh in a reasoned manner. This familiarizes the student with the ijtihadi and derivation method of Sheikh Ansari as a founder of a school of thought whose views still dominate the seminaries.

Currently, this method (which must be discussed separately regarding its characteristics) does not exist in the new books, and the quality of strengthening the power of ijtihad and derivation, which is highly necessary for a student, is absent in the replacement books. At the same time, I thank the authors and writers of some of these books; they labored, and we must not dismiss every effort entirely. Ultimately, we must be grateful to anyone who takes a step toward improvement. Indeed, a total rejection or total endorsement of any issue without considering the nuances and details is perhaps not correct—neither ethically nor religiously.

Therefore, what exists in this plan seems to create a major void from this perspective. Yes, some students seek “fast-food” sciences; they want everything to be presented to them in a fast-food format. A portion of them are like this, wanting to finish these stages quickly. However, the progress of Fiqh and the progress of Usul, which form the foundation of the seminary, are based on connecting with the heritage of the past, while simultaneously looking at new issues.

These books can be useful as sources for study or supplementary lectures, helping the seminary pay attention to new topics. They can even become mandatory. It is excellent to allocate a class for this purpose, not necessarily every day, just as the seminary management is currently striving to promote contemporary jurisprudence (Fiqh-e Mo’aser) lectures, which is a valuable effort. It is highly beneficial for seminary lectures to address new subjects, but addressing new subjects in the format of an educational textbook can stand alongside current textbooks, because the current textbooks possess merits for which no replacement has yet been found.

The method with which students must become familiar is highly important. For instance, we can say as a supplement to the current main lectures of the seminary: how does the ijtihadi method of Sheikh Ansari compare with the ijtihadi method of Muhaqqiq Khorasani? Yes, a student may study Makasib and Kifayah for years but still lack the capacity for this comparison. Or how was the derivation and ijtihadi method of contemporary jurists like Muhaqqiq Isfahani, Muhaqqiq Na’ini, and Muhaqqiq Iraqi, or what are their commonalities and differences in Usul in terms of foundations? These can all be studied as course units alongside these books. These are matters that are necessary and are currently being taught in many jurisprudential centers of the seminary, such as the methodology of researching the paths of derivation among scholars and jurists and their differences.

Therefore, in light of what has been said, it can be claimed that this replacement is not stronger (aqwa), whereas a replacement must be stronger. Furthermore, it must be viewed within a comprehensive and macro-system; textbook reform must be a part of a macro-program, and that macro-program must be presented. This is because we sometimes hear worrying news about certain programs that are not at all in the interest of the seminary—such as making lectures specialized starting from the fourth or fifth year.

How can a student enter specialized fields from the fourth, fifth, or sixth year without tasting the jurisprudence of the seminary and understanding the principles of jurisprudence? The expectation of the clergy as the spokesperson of religion is to be able to explain religious teachings and Shari’ah rulings well by relying on sources and foundations. If we are to present a collection of information to the students and pack a portion of memorized facts of every science into their minds, it will become a wide pool with very little depth; we expand the surface of knowledge, but its depth becomes weaker day by day.

With such a program, how are we to train the scholars needed by society? Even those who do not wish to pursue the path of derivation and ijtihad must at least possess a minimum standard of knowledge. We must not lower this baseline of knowledge required by the clergy.

We must not seek to satisfy the short-term satisfaction of students. Many researchers and students may be interested in completing these stages quickly. Currently, if you look, indeed a serious problem that exists is that the connection of many of our students with the heritage of the predecessor scholars has been severed. This is highly worrying; many students are not even familiar with the views of contemporary jurists and scholars. With the implementation of this plan, this problem will perhaps manifest itself even more.

Harim-e Imam: It seems that in this plan, the existing capacities of the seminary—especially the Maraji’ and prominent professors—were not utilized. Do you feel this is a void?

Answer: Of course, tastes vary on this issue as well. You have certainly noted that a portion of the professors who possess valuable backgrounds agree with this plan. It is a difficult task for a program and a plan to be endorsed by everyone and achieve consensus. Surely the organizers evaluated this program within a group, but it seems two steps must be taken regarding this plan:

First: A general survey must be conducted among all professors, and their viewpoints must be gathered, summarized, and taken into consideration.
Second: Such plans, as is customary, must first be implemented as a pilot program within a specific scope and among a specific group, and then the feedback of this program must be analyzed, and only then should they see whether it has the capacity to be generalized or not.

I think it is still not too late. It is true that this plan has been communicated to all schools for implementation and has acquired a formal aspect, but they can still gather the views of the grand, prominent professors and respected Maraji’, and convert it into a pilot course; only then should a decision be made to implement this program publicly. Certainly, the views of the professors who have worked and taught in this field for years and possess excellent experiences are a immense help to the directors of the seminary. Obviously, the alignment of the professors is an important spiritual support for the seminary management—the alignment of the Maraji’ and the support of the Maraji’. Therefore, attracting the views of the professors and the grand Maraji’ in this field is highly important.

Harim-e Imam: If any points remain, please mention them to complete your remarks.

Answer: As was pointed out, currently the authentic traditions of the seminary are truly neglected. Go among the students and see what percentage of them practice pre-study, post-class review, refer to commentaries and glosses, engage in collaborative discussion, and challenge their professors. Yes, perhaps ten or twenty percent are like this, but the issue is that we have abundant talents in the seminary whom we must direct.

Currently, programs have increased so much quantitatively that when we ask a student, “Why do you not perform pre-study? Why do you not engage in collaborative discussion?” they reply, “No time remains for us.” This quantity has to some extent overcome quality.

Of course, this has also been due to needs; for instance, they say: “Ultimately, the student must know this; they must be familiar with new issues.” Today, artificial intelligence has entered the sphere of science and knowledge, and the role that artificial intelligence can play is extraordinary; they say the student must know these things. This is a correct assertion, but is it correct for a student to merely smell a flower from every garden? This ultimately results in a pool whose area you have enlarged but whose depth you have reduced.

We fear that at some point, the graduates of the seminaries will become of the same level as university graduates of bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degrees in religious studies and theology. I do not wish, God forbid, to be disrespectful to them, but the nature of the seminary and studying in the seminary is different. Yes, textbooks must be reformed and changed, but within the framework of preserving those values that have always been the source of pride throughout history. We must organize programs in such a way that these are strengthened.

Harim-e Imam: Do you not feel that the fading of the seminary’s traditions to which you referred relates to the motivations of the students, and that they feel their knowledge does not correspond to the times and is not up-to-date?

Answer: The assertion that this relates to the motivations of the students is correct to some extent, but this is a multi-faceted problem. The assertion that the knowledge of seminarians must be up-to-date and that the educational system of the seminary requires reform is correct, but completely dismissing this knowledge and the educational system is not correct. Fallacies are occasionally put forward, such as: “How long must we study the issues of the Book of Prayer (Kitab al-Salat) and the Book of Purification (Kitab al-Taharah), which have been discussed for hundreds of years?”

The fallacy lies in the fact that while the issues and details raised in the Kitab al-Taharah possess intrinsic value, the more important goal is becoming familiar with the method of dealing with proofs and sources, and how to derive and perform ijtihad. Yes, new issues must also be discussed and taught. I speak within the sphere of jurisprudence and faqahat; new and contemporary issues must be discussed, which carries its own requirements.

However, the core is that even when these details and issues are researched, the goal is for the student to become familiar with the method; that method is what is important. For instance, they say that the lectures of Muhaqqiq Khorasani were mujtahid-producing, and the lectures of Ayatollah Boroujerdi were mujtahid-producing. Yet, the issues raised by Muhaqqiq Khorasani, the late Boroujerdi, and Imam Khomeini were the very same issues that everyone discussed; the key was that after attending their lectures, the student learned how to derive a ruling.

Yes, the void of certain disciplines is felt in the seminary, but this does not mean that this void alone causes a lack of motivation. How much motivation do our university students have? Why do we only point to the seminary? Those who study modern sciences also face a decline in motivation. The decline in motivation must be searched for in other areas as well.

Harim-e Imam: Such as what?

Answer: Various issues exist that fall outside the scope of this discussion, such as livelihood, the general atmosphere of society—many factors are influential here. If we were to list them here, many matters are involved. For instance, how the people judge the clergy, and when this person enters society with this position and title, how they are treated. Well, there are few individuals who possess the strength to resist these multi-faceted pressures; these are all involved. Certain behaviors and actions are involved. Many matters are involved.

One dimension is that if the seminary moves in a direction where its graduates are those who strengthen the efficiency and utility of religion and the clergy, this will naturally be highly effective.