The Distinctive Features of the Martyred Leader’s Fiqh Lesson
Note: Among the various facets of the personality of the Martyred Leader of the Revolution, his scholarly and juristic dimension has received comparatively little attention; and where it has occasionally been examined, it has generally not advanced beyond generalities and non-specific encomiums. On this occasion, we approached Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Muhammad Husayn Rezazadeh, an instructor of the advanced levels of the Qom Seminary and one of the students of the Martyred Leader’s fiqh lesson. In this interview, he spoke with precision and by way of concrete instances concerning the juristic dimensions of the Martyred Leader as an eminent teacher of the science of fiqh. Subject-identification through the narrations, the seminarian atmosphere prevailing over the lesson, extensive study and meticulous attention to the evidences, together with complete adherence to the Jawahiri method, were among the most significant features he set forth in this interview. He also referred to a written exchange between himself and the Martyred Leader that has not previously been recounted anywhere. The full text of Fiqh-e Moaser’s exclusive interview with the Director of the Office of Supervision and Inspection of the Secretariat of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Seminaries follows:
Our dear brethren requested that, on the eve of the funeral procession of our august commander and noble Martyred Leader, His Eminence Grand Ayatollah Hajj Sayyid Ali Khamenei (may God’s pleasure be upon him and may God elevate his noble station), and given that this humble servant attended his fiqh lesson for a period, I should set forth such points as occur to my deficient mind regarding the atmosphere of his lesson and his method. I shall now relate those points that come to my mind, although, firstly, an exhaustive survey of the material has perhaps not yet been undertaken, and it requires reflection and discussion with the other dear brethren who were present at the lesson in order for all the material to be gathered; and secondly, my exposition may perhaps lack proper order and coherence, for which shortcomings I apologize in advance.
An Exemplar of a Standard Fiqh Lesson
Concerning the fiqh lesson of the Supreme Leader, I have said previously in certain interviews that perhaps the foremost characteristic of his lesson is that it was truly a standard lesson with respect to the methods and patterns of derivation (istinbāṭ) employed by our other eminent jurists throughout the history of juristic scholarship. To use an expression drawn from the statements of the late Imam (may God’s mercy be upon him), his fiqh was entirely a Jawahiri fiqh — that is, free of the embellishments we sometimes observe in certain circles. It was entirely a fiqh grounded in the religious texts, in sound extraction of apparent meaning from the evidences, and in the application of general principles in appraising the authoritativeness of the evidences, in deriving their apparent import, and in reconciling them with one another.
Adherence to the Jawahiri Method Alongside the Opening of New Juristic Horizons
Despite the fact that in his public addresses he endeavoured to extend juristic scholarship into new domains, and strove to revive within the seminaries the discourse that we must expand this authentic Shiʿi juristic scholarship into the domains where it is needed and into the less-explored fields — and if I were to cite a comparable statement from other eminent figures, it resembles what the late Martyr al-Sadr (may God’s mercy be upon him) stated after writing the book Iqtiṣādunā; he said that our fiqh has grown a great deal vertically and has acquired considerable depth, but that horizontally it requires far greater growth; that is, it is necessary that this juristic scholarship, with all its depth, be extended into new domains in which no work has yet been done — despite the fact that the Martyred Leader (may God’s mercy be upon him) sought to build a discourse around such a proposition, namely the expansion of fiqh in terms of the entry of Shiʿi juristic scholarship into new domains, this by no means implied that he wished to depart from those established methods and from his authentic, Jawahiri juristic scholarship.
I emphasize this point because today, regrettably, we occasionally witness such a strategic error among seminarians: in order to extend juristic scholarship into new domains, they in fact compromise that authentic and sound juristic method, and at times fall prey to improper reliance upon the religious texts, or to overstepping them, or to excessive recourse to reason and the practice of rational agents (sīrat al-ʿuqalāʾ) and the like. In the juristic scholarship of our Martyred Leader and in his derivations, not the slightest trace of such deviation from the fundamental principles of the Shiʿi juristic method was to be seen; he advanced the work entirely upon the basis of that same juristic method and brought the discussion to its conclusion accordingly.
No Unwarranted Cancellation of the Lesson
Following this general observation, it must be said that his lesson possessed certain distinctive characteristics. Firstly, notwithstanding his numerous responsibilities and manifold preoccupations, the amount of instruction he delivered — both in terms of its convening, as far as I recall, and in terms of the substance of the discussion, the thorough examination of the evidences, and the survey of the statements of other jurists — constituted a truly remarkable lesson. That is to say, it was not the case that the lesson would be cancelled repeatedly on various pretexts. Indeed, he had manifold preoccupations; the lesson was held three days a week, namely on Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays, yet the endeavour was that these three days be maintained throughout the academic year, that this schedule not be departed from, and that the lesson not be cancelled.
Exhaustive Consideration of the Evidences
Within the lesson itself, he would undertake a thorough examination of the verses and narrations pertinent to the subject under discussion and would review the statements of the jurists. By way of example, we were present with him during the discussion of Makāsib al-Muḥarrama; he would examine the statements of the Supreme Shaykh (may God’s mercy be upon him) and the significant marginalia upon the Shaykh’s Makāsib, such as the statements of the late Sayyid, the statements of the late Iravani, at times those of other eminent scholars, the pronouncements of the late Ayatollah al-Khoei, and the pronouncements of the late Imam (may God’s mercy be upon him). In certain questions he would also consult the works of the earlier jurists, and where a claim of consensus had been established in a given question or a preponderant opinion had been asserted, he would refer to the statements of the jurists. Furthermore, with regard to the examination of the evidences, it may be said that the point most prominently featured in his fiqh lesson was the direct and exhaustive consideration of the evidences and narrations — concerning which I shall set forth several points.
Extensive Study in Preparation for Teaching
Perhaps the fullest manifestation of this disposition and method of his was in the discussion of “singing and music” (ghināʾ and music); he proceeded according to the sequence of the Makāsib, and at the beginning of one academic year I recall that he stated: “I wished to begin the discussion of ghināʾ in the previous academic year, but when this collection was brought to me, I said that I cannot broach the discussion of ghināʾ and music while I have not examined this collection.” (In that instance he had accomplished at least two major undertakings: one was that he had extracted all the discussions our jurists had produced concerning ghināʾ, whether in the form of independent treatises or within the body of juristic compendia, from the earliest period down to recent times, and had gathered together the statements of the jurists relating to the discussion of ghināʾ. The other component was the collection of all the narrations existing on the subject of ghināʾ and music.) And he stated that over the course of the summer he had read this entire collection. Consider that for a single discussion of ghināʾ and music, he had thoroughly studied a collection amounting to perhaps some five substantial volumes; and indeed, when he commenced the discussion, he displayed exceptional mastery.
Recourse to the Narrations as a Means of Subject-Identification
When I say that the discussion of ghināʾ and music represents the fullest manifestation of his method, I mean his simultaneous attention to the statements of the jurists and his direct attention to the evidences. With regard to direct attention to the evidences — that is, drawing upon them directly — it was a prominent feature of his juristic method that he derived two kinds of benefit from the narrations and the legal evidences generally. One is the customary use, whereby one consults the narrations in order to ascertain and locate the ruling on a given question; this matter is self-evident and admits of no dispute. But in certain subjects, particularly those which are by their very nature complex and obscure — such as this very discussion of ghināʾ, namely what precisely the ghināʾ is that has been forbidden — many of our jurists devote the bulk of their effort to examining the lexicons, the statements of the jurists, and thereafter to consulting customary intuitions (irtikāzāt ʿurfiyya) and the like (which, to be sure, is itself sound in its proper place, and the Martyred Leader (may God’s mercy be upon him) likewise employed these very instruments in subject-identification). Yet the point that was prominent in his manner of working was recourse to the narrations as texts that bring us closer to the “subject”; that is, from amidst the allusions and indications yielded by the narrations themselves, we may discern what subject the narrations, or the verses of the Qur’an (in the discussion of ghināʾ and music, the matter of Qur’anic verses was likewise raised), are speaking of. He would extract the bounds and limits of the subject from the subtleties present within the transmitted evidences themselves; and this, in my view, is a most noteworthy method in the subject-identification of certain questions — that we consult the texts not in order to ascertain the ruling, but in order to ascertain the subject.
He Said: “Another Approach Must Be Devised”
Let me here insert a parenthetical remark. At one point during that same period it occurred to us to consider what measures ought to be taken in order to ascertain the context in which the evidences and narrations were issued and the setting within which these narrations emerged. It occurred to us, for instance, to study the historical works; I recall that in connection with the discussion of ghināʾ and music I had begun studying the book Al-Aghānī and certain works of history — not with a view to examining history in terms of the recording of events and occurrences, as to on which day, month, and year something took place, but rather so that from the sum of the study of this written heritage we might arrive at a conception enabling us to grasp precisely what the evidences issued within this setting intend to convey.
This was a project we had commenced, and we were engaged in the study of these works. I sent a letter to the Martyred Leader (may God’s mercy be upon him) and requested his guidance, stating that we had such an idea and had begun such an undertaking, and asking what his view on the matter was. Notwithstanding that he was exceedingly well-read in these areas and that we imagined he would welcome this course (for I knew that he had perhaps once, and in all likelihood twice, read Al-Aghānī — which is a voluminous work — from beginning to end, and had likewise studied numerous other historical works), it was important to me to ascertain what his view was within the domain of juristic inquiry. The reply that his office read out to me and which I recorded (the exact text is not before me at present, though I have a note of it elsewhere) was that he had stated: “This course is exceedingly long and of little benefit; another approach must be devised.” This was the brief answer he gave at that time in reply to our letter.
After we had reflected for a while and had grown more familiar with his method, my understanding was that perhaps that “other approach” consisted in close scrutiny of the narrations themselves as a means of ascertaining the subject and of ascertaining the social, cultural, and situational setting within which the narrations were issued; this method might well render the path far shorter and more fruitful for us. He himself likewise insisted upon employing this method.
Earnestness and Precision in Examining the Evidences
In sum, he was firmly convinced that in juristic discussions one must devote time to the evidences; hence, in that very discussion of ghināʾ and music, in an ample chapter he would recite each and every one of the principal narrations bearing upon the discussion; he would discuss them from the standpoint of the chain of transmission, of their signification, and from various other aspects, and would then proceed to a summation in order to determine what subject, first of all, and thereafter what ruling, may be derived from these narrations, and would bring the discussion to its conclusion. So much for this dimension of his lesson.
He Held the Science of Uṣūl to Be Instrumental
He did not conduct a lesson in uṣūl, which, given his manifold preoccupations, was only natural, and he devoted the bulk of his effort to advancing the discussion of fiqh. To be sure, methodologically there also appeared to be this distinction, that he emphasized the instrumental character of the science of uṣūl in relation to fiqh, and never accorded an independent standing to the science of uṣūl. He did, of course, possess his own foundations in uṣūl, and at times in the discussions, where major premises drawn from uṣūl were required, he would state that our view in uṣūl has been thus, and would set forth his opinion. He had adopted definite positions on those questions of uṣūl that he required; but as for raising uṣūlī discussions one after another, or hypothetically stating, “If we had no evidence or narration here, what should we do in accordance with the principles of uṣūl?” and devoting a lengthy chapter to the uṣūlī rules applicable lawlā al-dalīl — this was not his practice. He advanced the discussion in an entirely realistic and outcome-oriented manner; yet at the same time he possessed foundations in uṣūl and advanced the discussion in accordance with them.
Mastery of the Science of Rijāl
With regard to the discussion of rijāl, he was genuinely masterful; that is, he possessed complete command both of the historical backgrounds and settings and of the knowledge of individuals and persons — he was thoroughly acquainted with the transmitters, their records, and their connections. Moreover, with respect to foundational positions, he was a scholar of independent doctrine. By way of example, in the discussion of the Aṣḥāb al-Ijmāʿ (the Companions of Consensus) he held, like a number of other jurists, that we are able to establish the authoritativeness of a narration thereby. This is a foundational position within the science of rijāl that is subject to debate; although eminent scholars such as the late Ayatollah al-Khoei did not accept the doctrine of the Aṣḥāb al-Ijmāʿ, he maintained that we can establish the authoritativeness of narrations by way of the Aṣḥāb al-Ijmāʿ. That is, if the chain of a narration was sound up to those Aṣḥāb al-Ijmāʿ, there was thereafter no need to establish the trustworthiness of the transmitters; rather, we would say that this narration is authoritative. There were other instances of this kind as well, which demonstrated that he was genuinely a scholar of independent doctrine in the science of rijāl.
Qur’an-Centredness Without Excess
In juristic discussions it was not the case that he fell into excess in Qur’an-centredness, in the sense of according insufficient attention to the evidences and narrations; this was by no means so. Recourse to the narrations and their examination featured very prominently in his lesson. Yet whenever it became necessary for him to undertake an examination of the Qur’anic verses, his mastery in gathering the relevant verses, in understanding them, and in grasping their exegetical dimensions was manifest. In all fairness, his exegetical capacities were exceedingly fine. For a brief period we worked on some of his exegetical discussions, and he truly possessed an exceptionally lucid and sound understanding and sensibility in drawing upon the verses of the Noble Qur’an. In that same discussion of ghināʾ and music which has been mentioned, he would consult certain verses. One of the discussions in which recourse to the verses was especially prominent was the subject-identification of “sorcery” (siḥr), wherein, apart from the discussion of its ruling, he addressed what sorcery fundamentally is. Various verses have addressed the matter of sorcery; and accordingly he would recite one by one the numerous verses in which the matter of sorcery is raised, and would take up the lexical usage, the inference to be drawn from the verse, the understanding derived from the whole of the preceding and following portions of the verses, and the like, and he arrived at a view that was perhaps at variance with many of the views of the jurists. He nonetheless stated in the end that, after he himself had arrived at his summation, he had come across the pronouncement of the late Ayatollah al-Khoei on the subject-identification of sorcery and had realized that his own view coincided with that of the late Ayatollah al-Khoei; yet he stated that Ayatollah al-Khoei had not traversed the path we had taken, but had proceeded by another route, though in his view the very path he himself had followed was the more acceptable one. This too was another dimension of his discussion.
Committing the Material to Writing Prior to the Convening of the Lesson
As regards the determination of subjects for the lessons, he naturally — owing to the fact that he did not have sufficient time for the delivery of the lesson (for as you are aware, a jurist can sometimes assemble the material and reach a conclusion in his summation and derivation more swiftly, whereas the delivery of a lesson entails requirements that at times demand more time; that is, arranging the discussion for presentation as a lesson is time-consuming) — his disposition was to commit to writing the discussions he intended to present. At times it was evident that he was reading from a notebook he had with him, saying: “Yes, here I have written thus,” and the like. This indicated that he committed the lesson to writing prior to attending the session. For this reason he did not take up certain highly novel and challenging discussions, such as economic or banking questions and the like, which involve particular subject-identifications and in which locating the evidences and conducting the discussion is time-consuming. During the period in which we were present with him, the discussion was Makāsib al-Muḥarrama, and thereafter he took up the discussion of the traveller’s prayer and the congregational prayer, at which lessons I no longer had the privilege of being present. Prior to that he had also discussed Kitāb al-Jihād, Kitāb al-Qiṣāṣ, and discussions of this sort.
Reciting Narrations from Memory
Among the significant points that were likewise entirely evident in his lesson was the excellent memory he possessed. It was not the case that he would set forth a matter today and after a time forget his foundational position, his view, or even the evidences. It is noteworthy that one day he arrived; as was customary, the security brother accompanying him would place before him the notebook containing his written material and certain requisite works such as Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa or other books. He would generally recite the narrations from the text of Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa. In that session, he wished to recite a narration, but realized that the volume of Wasāʾil containing the narration in question was not with him. He instructed the security brothers to fetch that particular volume from his room. He then said: “While this brother of ours goes to bring that volume of Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa, I shall begin reciting this narration from memory until the book arrives.” And he proceeded to recite both the chain of transmission and the text of the narration from memory. Ordinarily, no one sets out to memorize one by one the narrations falling under a given juristic discussion, as one memorizes the Qur’an; this demonstrates that, inasmuch as he had been engaged in studying these evidences and narrations and had in all likelihood reviewed them several times and reflected upon their various aspects, the narration had been imprinted upon his memory. His reciting the narration from memory in the course of the lesson was most striking to us; he recited the narration in full, or a substantial portion of it, until the book was brought. My point is that this powerful memory which God the Exalted had bestowed upon him greatly assisted the coherence of the discussion and ensured that no discordant or contradictory statements were heard from him; and I do not recall any instance in which he argued contrary to his own foundational position.
The Seminarian Atmosphere of the Lesson Session
The atmosphere of the lesson, too, was entirely that of a seminarian lesson; that is, notwithstanding that one might imagine that he held the office of Leadership and that security personnel and various individuals were present and that certain sensitivities obtained, once the lesson commenced, the relationship of teacher and student prevailed entirely. Individuals would raise objections and he would respond; if in the midst of the lesson an in qulta (a hypothetical objection) or a question was raised, he would answer with patience and forbearance, and it was not the case that he lacked the patience to engage in discussion with anyone. He did, of course, manage the session so that the lesson would not devolve into two-way exchanges. Accordingly, the lesson was highly successful in that he possessed an exceedingly well-ordered mind, wrote out the discussions prior to the lesson, and managed the lesson session admirably (in such a manner that objections and responses were permitted, while at the same time the discussion was not left to drift such that bilateral exchanges would consume the time of the class).
The Martyred Leader’s Insistence Upon the Jawahiri Method
This too was among the further distinctive features of his lesson. In closing, I once again emphasize that initial point: notwithstanding his considerable attention to innovation, to the expansion of fiqh, and to the resolution of novel questions in his numerous and repeated addresses, and his demand for this from the seminary, this never caused him, upon entering the domain of fiqh and derivation, to depart from the sound and established principles of Shiʿi juristic scholarship; rather, he proceeded in accordance with those very principles and carried out juristic derivation upon their basis.