Note: The leadership of Martyr Ayatollah Khamenei over the Islamic Republic of Iran, although bringing fame to some of his fatwas, eclipsed the non-political dimensions of his personality behind the political aspect of this martyred leader. This very factor has led to his approaches in Islamic sciences, particularly the science of jurisprudence (fiqh), being less addressed in a scholarly and methodical manner. One of his major efforts in recent decades was creating the discourse of contemporary jurisprudence in the Islamic seminaries. The increase in advanced lectures (dars-e kharij) on contemporary jurisprudence, writings on contemporary jurisprudence, and institutions tasked with producing content in this regard during his 36-year tenure of leadership demonstrates his brilliant record in this matter. We interviewed Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Sayyid Hamid Alavi-Aziz regarding the approach of Martyr Ayatollah Khamenei to contemporary jurisprudence and his scientific and managerial measures in this connection. Having taught various seminary courses in the Khorasan Seminary for over three decades, he has also been among the senior managers of this ancient seminary for nearly two decades. His positions as Academic Vice Chancellor, Vice Chancellor for Education, Vice Chancellor for Research, and Director General of Planning and Budget of the Khorasan Seminary, alongside more than ten years of directing the Ayatollah Khoei Seminary—the largest seminary school in Mashhad—make him one of the most qualified individuals to express views on this topic. The detailed text of Contemporary Jurisprudence‘s exclusive interview with this scholar and researcher of the Khorasan Seminary follows:
Contemporary Jurisprudence: In what areas were the efforts of Martyr Ayatollah Khamenei regarding the development and deepening of contemporary jurisprudence concentrated, and what effects did they produce?
Alavi-Aziz: If we wish to precisely examine the role and position of His Eminence Grand Ayatollah Martyr Sayyid Ali Khamenei in the development of contemporary jurisprudence, applied/applied branch jurisprudences (feqh-ha-ye mofaz), and newly emerging issues (masa’il-e mustahdasah), it is necessary that his decades of teaching be meticulously and methodically analyzed; his seminary management and political guidance up until recently and prior to his martyrdom must be carefully investigated, and its historical and jurisprudential documentations taken into account.
However, in brief, it can be said that his most major work in developing and deepening contemporary jurisprudence, in the view of this humble servant, was that he opened up the field and recognized Shi’i jurisprudence as possessing this vast internal capacity to respond to the most complex problems of the modern world. He guided legislation in the Islamic Republic in such a manner that no legal dead-end was encountered when facing newly emerging phenomena. In my view, this was his most major work. He imparted this courage and audacity to the Islamic seminaries, advancing in the best possible way the endeavor initiated during the time of the late Imam [Khomeini]—who viewed jurisprudence as capable of responding to all needs from the cradle to the grave, including individual, social, governmental, and international needs—and elevated jurisprudence to this exalted status.
He himself also entered specific domains; such as topics related to the environment, which exist both in his advanced lectures (dars-e kharij) and in his book of queries (Istifta’at); topics related to jihad, ceasefires, economic jurisprudence, banking discussions, the stock market, money, money creation, medical discussions, the fatwas he issued regarding cloning and organ transplantation, and topics in the jurisprudence of art, music, ghina [singing], and the jurisprudence of communications. Thus, he acted in two dimensions: meaning he made specific and topical entries himself, and in addition, he endorsed, emphasized, approved, and laid the track so that Shi’i jurisprudence could enter these contemporary topics and resolve them.
Although I mention parenthetically that I still have a problem with this term so-called “contemporary jurisprudence.” Jurisprudence is jurisprudence; it does not have contemporary or non-contemporary, but rather it is the jurisprudence of contemporary topics. Topics that have recently arisen were not in this form in the past; just as in the science of theology (kalam), we do not have new and old theology, but rather new theological topics. Of course, it is not a problem for us to have old and new in a science; perhaps in medical science, for instance, we have ancient and modern medicine, or in astronomy, ancient and modern astronomy, because the methods and techniques of problem-solving have been completely overturned and undergone an essential difference in medicine and astronomy. But in jurisprudence, it is not like this; our jurisprudence is the same Jawahiri jurisprudence, which has been stated to be the jurisprudence of Sheikh Tusi that has evolved; jurisprudence is jurisprudence.
Of course, when a topic is new, it naturally demands a new methodology of subject identification (mowzu’-shenasi). I have heard that when he discussed these very musical topics (even though he was himself an expert and active in this field), he utilized the opinions of specialists in ghina, art, and music so that a better subject identification could be accomplished.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Were the topics of his jurisprudence lectures organized based on contemporary jurisprudential discussions, or did he discuss the traditional topics of the science of jurisprudence?
Alavi-Aziz: Regarding the topics of his advanced jurisprudence lectures (dars-e kharij), which began in 1990, the structure of his lectures followed the traditional categorization (tabwib) and topics of jurisprudence, such as the chapters on Jihad, Retaliation (Qisas), Forbidden Gains (Al-Makasib al-Muharramah), and the Prayer of the Traveler (Salat al-Musafir). These are the topics he raised.
However, regarding the content and his angle of vision, we must say it was completely focused on contemporary jurisprudence; for instance, in his lectures on Al-Makasib al-Muharramah, which spanned many years, it was not merely a matter of reviewing the opinions of past scholars, but rather he extensively addressed newly emerging topics such as intellectual property, copyright, privacy, ghina and music, and modern contracts.
Therefore, the format of the lecture was traditional and based on classic seminary texts, but the jurisprudential deductions (istinbatat) and subject identifications were entirely conducted through the approach of contemporary jurisprudence—though let me correct “contemporary jurisprudence” again: contemporary jurisprudential issues.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: In the advanced-level lectures (sotuh-e ‘ali) he taught in the Mashhad Seminary prior to the 1979 Revolution, did he make references and allusions to newly emerging issues (masa’il-e mustahdasah)? Were these references exclusively in the realm of political jurisprudence, or did he also enter other newly emerging jurisprudential domains (at that time)?
Alavi-Aziz: Of course, answering this question truly requires extensive research and investigation. However, what I have gathered in brief from the memoirs of his students in the Mashhad Seminary from before 1979 and some available historical documents is that the main focus of our martyred master during that period was centered primarily on Quranic exegesis (tafsir) with a social approach, and secondarily on Islamic political thought; such as the discussions he presented at the Karamat Mosque and the Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a) Mosque, which became the book titled An Outline of Islamic Thought in the Quran.
However, he was a distinguished professor and, for example, taught texts like Al-Makasib at advanced levels. In that teaching as well, his primary focus was extracting the foundations of political jurisprudence, such as rejecting tyranny (nafy-e taghut), struggle, and guardianship (wilayat). Therefore, at least I am unaware of him making a detailed entry, for instance, into other newly emerging fields, such as medical jurisprudence or communications jurisprudence. Of course, these topics were not prominent in the seminaries at that time either. At least, it can be said that documented data showing he had an extensive, systematic, or even case-by-case entry into so-called non-political newly emerging issues prior to the Revolution is not available. Of course, this seems logical to me as well, because the main concern of that era was articulating the foundations of struggle, Islamic government, rejecting tyranny, and the like; hence, the expectation was the same.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: How do you evaluate his managerial efforts toward developing and deepening contemporary jurisprudence during his period of leadership?
Alavi-Aziz: I addressed part of the answer to this question in response to the first question. Without any flattery, he must be considered the standard-bearer of deepening contemporary jurisprudence, or rather the jurisprudence of newly emerging and contemporary topics. Perhaps no one opened the field for contemporary jurisprudence as much as he did, nor imparted courage and audacity to the seminaries, elders, and professors to enter these arenas to the extent that he acted.
The evidence for this claim is that in macro-level management, he laid the strategy of a “responsive seminary”—not merely responsive to newly emerging issues, but an “initiator of events” (muhdith-e hadisah); meaning that the seminary must be ahead of its time. In continuous meetings with members of the Supreme Council, scholars, and authorities of emulation (maraji’), he emphasized that jurisprudence must emerge from the monopoly of individual issues such as ritual purity, impurity, prayer, and the like, and enter the jurisprudence of social systems.
He provided structural and spiritual support for establishing specialized disciplines in the seminary and encouraged professors and young scholars to launch dars-e kharij [advanced jurisprudential study] chairs on newly emerging topics in the seminary. Furthermore, he referred macro-level national issues to young scholars for jurisprudential deduction (istinbat) and held sessions in which he personally participated for hours.
In my opinion, these are highly prominent managerial measures, all aimed at demonstrating that the seminary, and specifically jurisprudence, is capable of answering all these newly emerging and contemporary issues using that very same Jawahiri method. In my view, it was his efforts that succeeded in transforming the discourse of “applied jurisprudence,” “applied jurisprudences,” and “contemporary jurisprudence” from a peripheral concept into a primary demand within the seminary body.
The evidence for this is also found by referring to his statements in gatherings of professors and scholars of the seminaries of Qom and Mashhad between 1995 and 2010, and even in the years following, which makes this matter “clearer than the sun.”
Contemporary Jurisprudence: To what extent have the jurisprudential institutions and centers established in recent years under his leadership in the seminaries of Qom, Mashhad, and Tehran served the development and deepening of contemporary jurisprudence, what objectives did they pursue, and to what degree have they succeeded in realizing these objectives to date?
Alavi-Aziz: On this matter as well, I present my personal impression. I have been active for many years in seminary management centers and in research and educational sectors, and I have personally been concerned with this issue. I must state that, for example, the Office of Contemporary Jurisprudence established in the Qom Seminary acted very successfully in compiling books such as Al-Fa’iq and other works in the field of contemporary jurisprudence, as well as in encouraging professors to teach these topics. Under the shadow of these very supports, nearly one hundred dars-e kharij courses on contemporary jurisprudence have been registered in the cities of Qom, Mashhad, Tehran, and other centers.
Of course, I believe these centers acted very successfully in producing foundational literature and discourse-building; however, in terms of supplying all the legislative needs of the system, they are far from the optimal point. This is also natural, because the speed of evolution in modern phenomena, such as artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies, usually outpaces the speed of our traditional jurisprudential deductions and the educational bureaucracies of the seminary. Nevertheless, in my view, these centers have achieved good success in the stage of producing foundational literature and discourse-building; but regarding how much they have been able to supply the legislative and lawmaking needs of the system, in my opinion (though my information may not be exact), there remains a long distance to reach the optimal point in this area.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: How do you evaluate his efforts toward applying contemporary jurisprudence in governmental centers and institutions?
Alavi-Aziz: I believe this topic was addressed in response to previous questions; he transformed jurisprudence from a state of being merely a theoretical framework into an efficient instrument for governance. I state once again that this approach was a continuation of the same perspective of the late Imam [Khomeini], who held such a role and status for jurisprudence. In my view, his approach toward governmental institutions was truly pragmatic and grounded in the power and flexibility of Shi’i jurisprudence. This matter can be observed through institutions such as the Expediency Discernment Council and guidance related to the Guardian Council, so as to pave the path for legislation based on expediency (maslahat), secondary rulings (ahkam-e sanawiyyah), and similar mechanisms (which are themselves among the achievements of contemporary political jurisprudence).
This approach led to no real dead-end being felt in the approval of laws related to banking, taxation, population issues, international treaties, and similar subjects. Although the output of jurisprudence in these fields may require further deepening and research, no one felt that a dead-end existed; in other words, he at least did not hold the view that jurisprudence faced a dead-end, but rather believed that jurists must exert greater effort and research. To provide an exact answer to this question, if we examine legal-jurisprudential queries (referred, for example, from the Judiciary to his office), approvals of the Expediency Discernment Council, and his endorsements with greater precision, a more exact answer can be presented.