Introduction: Several weeks have passed since the historic message of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution to the conference marking the centennial of the re-establishment of the Qom Seminary, a message that can be regarded as the second “Charter of the Clergy.” One of the key themes of this message was the necessity for the seminary to issue its own independent credentials. In this regard, we spoke with Hojjat al-Islam Mustafa Dorri, Deputy Director of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudential Studies. In addition to teaching and research, he has been actively involved in curriculum planning for many years and has participated in numerous meetings of the Supreme Council of Seminaries for this purpose. He firmly believes that the need for independent seminary credentials is evident. He argues that those who designed the current four-level credential system for seminaries have essentially imitated universities, whereas it would have been preferable either to avoid such imitation entirely or to model the system after the world’s top universities. According to this Qom Seminary professor and researcher, the pursuit of credentials within the seminary is a product of the market created by seminary management. If no practical significance were attached to seminary credentials internally, students would not pursue them. Below is the detailed and insightful interview conducted by Contemporary Jurisprudence with this professor of both seminary and university:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Why does the Supreme Leader emphasize that seminary credentials should be issued by the seminary itself, not by universities or the Ministry of Science?

Dorri: Let me begin with a preface on seminary credentials. It has been about a century since universities were established in Iran. Until a few decades ago, the institutions of the seminary and the university were always distinct and never compared. This distinction arose from their differing functions. Before the establishment of universities, nearly all sciences were taught in seminaries. Past scholars were proficient not only in religious sciences but also in medicine, geometry, mathematics, astronomy, and cosmology, as the seminary was the sole center for such education. However, after the establishment of universities, Islamic sciences were relegated to seminaries, while humanities, mathematics, and foundational sciences were assigned to universities.

The goal of the seminary has always been clear: deep contemplation, profound understanding, and the realization of the literal meaning of tafaqquh (profound comprehension of religion). In Islamic sciences, students aimed to propagate religion and gain a deep understanding of it, with credentials never being their primary motivation. In contrast, at universities, credentials were often a significant motivator. The comparison between seminary and university credentials began when seminaries started issuing credentials, leading to comparisons between the years required to obtain credentials in each system.

With this context, I assert that it is obvious the seminary should issue its own independent credentials. Why? Because the seminary has never been under the purview of the Ministry of Science. If the seminary is not a subsidiary of the Ministry, why should its credentials be issued by it? The Ministry of Science is not familiar with the academic levels of the seminary, does not set policies or assign value to these levels, and has no such responsibility.

Another point to consider is that those who equated seminary credentials with university degrees seem to have been influenced by universities. For example, universities have four academic levels, and the seminary has similarly designed four levels (Level 1 to Level 4). Unfortunately, this emulation has been based on universities ranked 300 or 400 globally, such as the University of Tehran, Sharif, or Shiraz. If emulation is necessary, it should be modeled after the world’s top universities, such as Harvard, Princeton, or Oxford.

At the top ten universities globally, a doctorate is not the end of academic progression; there are further stages like post-doctorate and fellowships. In contrast, in the seminary, a marja’ taqlid (source of emulation), the highest scholarly rank, is considered equivalent to a doctorate. Ijtihad should instead be equated with full professorship in universities. If we are to emulate, we should draw inspiration from advanced educational systems. Historically, the seminary had a hierarchy of scholarly ranks: Murovvej al-Ahkam, Thiqat al-Islam, Thiqat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, Hujjat al-Islam, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, Ayatollah, and Ayatollah al-Uzma. These titles reflected both scholarly and spiritual ranks. Today, a similar system could be used to differentiate academic levels.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: How can seminary credentials be issued while preventing credentialism?

Dorri: Credentials in themselves can be useful, but credentialism is undesirable, even in universities. To prevent this, two types of credentials can be defined: one for internal seminary use and another for external purposes. For external contexts, there is no need to use value-based titles like Ayatollah or Mujtahid. Instead, certifications from Level 1 to Level 4 can be issued. For example, if a seminary student joins a university faculty, the university needs a credential to determine their salary. In such cases, a certificate can confirm the completion of a specific level without assigning a value-based title.

Another solution is to reserve value-based seminary titles, which are significant internally, for traditional methods. For instance, certification of ijtihad should not be issued by the seminary’s management center but should, as in the past, be validated by two marja’ taqlid. Additionally, financial support for students should be based on their services, not their credentials. Metrics such as the number of authored books or teaching hours could determine eligibility for such support.

Furthermore, the knowledge market should be managed to direct motivations toward service and research. If no special privileges are attached to credentials, individuals will not pursue them.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Do current seminary credentials truly reflect a student’s academic and practical progress?

Dorri: We have two types of titles: academic credentials and value-based titles. These should not be conflated. For example, a certificate can be issued stating that an individual has studied advanced jurisprudential courses (dars-e kharij) for eight years, and the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution could equate this to a post-doctorate. This certificate reflects academic achievement. However, the title of Ayatollah is a value-based title that encompasses not only knowledge but also spiritual refinement and religious eligibility. An Ayatollah is not merely an academic rank but also indicates eligibility to be a source of emulation.

Thus, a distinction must be made between academic credentials and value-based titles. While Level 4 or 5 in jurisprudence might be equivalent to an Ayatollah, this does not apply to fields like exegesis or philosophy, where even the highest academic ranks should not be given titles like Ayatollah. This distinction prevents societal misunderstandings.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Can seminary credentials be used in society and the educational system, such as for government or university employment?

Dorri: If the seminary issues its own independent credentials and compares itself not to the University of Tehran but to Harvard, Princeton, or Oxford, then comparisons with universities will pose no issue. For instance, the start of advanced jurisprudential studies (dars-e kharij) could be considered equivalent to a doctorate, as a student at this stage is academically more advanced than a university doctorate in jurisprudence.

For external purposes, credentials should be issued with greater rigor to maintain their value. For internal seminary use, precise and stringent criteria should be established. The stricter the criteria, the higher the value of the seminary credential, and this will not reduce interest in the seminary.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What methods can make seminary credentials understandable to others?

Dorri: To make seminary credentials comprehensible, they must be clearly explained. One approach is to equate them with familiar university degrees. Since university degrees are more widely understood, seminary levels can be compared to them. For example, Level 4 could be considered equivalent to or higher than a doctorate.

Another method is to explain the coursework completed at each level. For instance, it can be stated that a Level 1 student has studied Arabic texts equivalent to a doctorate in Arabic literature, even though their credential is equivalent to an associate’s degree in the university system. Thus, detailing the coursework at each level is another way to make seminary credentials understandable.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is your final conclusion on this matter?

Dorri: My conclusion is that seminaries must move toward transformations that preserve their authenticity while addressing both internal needs and enhancing their global standing. Seminary credentials should be independent, credible, and comprehensible to all, but this does not mean imitating other educational systems. Instead, a system should be designed that draws inspiration from successful global experiences while relying on the rich resources of Islam to prevent credentialism and foster students’ academic and spiritual motivations.

Emphasizing educational quality, transparency in issuing credentials, and distinguishing between academic and value-based titles are key strategies to achieve this goal. If these reforms are implemented correctly, seminaries will not only maintain their position within the country but also emerge as leading centers of Islamic sciences globally.