Ayatullah Ali Dust has also written his concluding and final note on this subject, which is dedicated to his loved ones.
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
A note regarding my debate with Dr. Abdul Karim Surush in October 2024
Three positions on the tradition of narrations
The fanatical defense of some Imamiyyah Akhbarians of the tradition of narration, which led to the authenticity of all existing hadiths, and the extreme attack of some intellectuals on this tradition, are like two scissors that seem to be mutually exclusive, but if you look closely, they not only have nothing to do with each other, but they sharpen each other to cut off the moderate users of this venerable tradition. A venerable tradition that has been provided with the treasure of suffering of thousands of pure narrators, hadith scholars and jurisprudents. A precious heritage that, on the one hand, fills the gaps in human guidance and meets the needs of those seeking guidance, and on the other hand, it is an intangible heritage of civilization that should not be unwisely invaded and judged unfairly. This legacy, after the end of the era of anti-Hadith and the prohibition of writing Hadith in the era of the Caliphs, was first issued and completed until the time of the Righteous, peace be upon them; and then in the era of the Imams after the Righteous, it was restored from the taint of forgery and the difficulty of conflict. It is as if the Shiite Imams, by designing the doctrine of “restoration-refinement”, tried to deliver this legacy as sound and useful as possible to the future generations.
It would not be bad for Mr. Dr. Surush to teach his audience what is the criterion and measure for them in selecting the many Hadiths that they have been responsible for expanding and explaining for years in the courses of Nahj al-Balaghah, (Kimiyaye Sa’adat) Alchemy of Happiness, Religion and Power, and Religious Conduct…?
Or what is their criterion in accepting the narrations of the book “Al-Muraqabat” by Mirza Javad Agha Maleki Tabrizi, whose familiarity with it they considered one of the achievements of their youth? Very good; He should explain to his audience by what criteria and standards he has accepted hadiths such as the Prophet’s ignorance and surprise at the pollination of the palm grove, so that we can also use the same criteria to select other hadiths.
Does the story of the garbage heap, the ash heap, and the white hair on the black cow’s body still hold true?
2. I believe that anti-heritage and cultural burning should be divided into two ways: hot (and red) and soft (and white): one is the way of Alexander the Great, the Mongols, and the Ghaznavids, who burned the books of a civilization in a hot fire, and the other is the subtle, white, but bitter and destructive way that, by introducing hadiths as “ashes” has striven to softly burn this intangible heritage. It goes without saying that soft culture burning is much more destructive and misleading than hot culture burning because it takes the young generation seeking guidance out of the land of hadiths with a big “no” and leaves them bewildered in the wilderness of ignorance and lost capital. It seems that the actions of some are a big “no” and a “zero” to the capital inherited from the past and a thunderbolt without rain, and nothing more!
3.What happened was in connection with the narrative heritage received from the Prophet and the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a). Regarding jurisprudence, it should also be said: It is clear that some Muslim theologians and mystics have had a long-standing disagreement with a part of the body of jurisprudence. In this part of the body of jurisprudence, which has been resented by theologians and mystics, there are also some who are present whose sharp edge of their pen is even stained with the blood of true jurists and thinkers such as al-Shahid al-Awal, al-Shahid al-Thani, and Judge Nurullah Shushtari. Although this conflict has sometimes crossed the threshold of religious prejudices and other narrow-mindedness throughout history, it is rooted in intellectual perspectives, and as a well-wisher of Dr. Surush, I ask him not to turn the understandable but unfounded resentment that he has towards some jurists in the contemporary era into an unjustified continuation of that historical conflict. And they should not criticize the “existence of the institution of jurisprudence” with all the criticisms they may have on the “existing state of that institution”, with harsh expressions such as “selling vinegar”, “selling religion” and “thinking about life” that dull the market of discussion, they should not ridicule the rival’s goods and always be careful about this point that great people like Ayatullah Fayz Kashani, with all the criticisms they had on the existing state of jurisprudence, considered the essence of this institution to be the noble divine science, the oldest of the sciences, the most important of the sciences and believed that even ethics would not lead anywhere without relying on the pillar of jurisprudence. And thinkers like Ghazali, with all the criticism they had on the strict and undeveloped part of jurisprudence, instead of accusing the institution of jurisprudence of immorality, valued the coexistence of these two sciences on a common and sometimes overlapping border.
You know it well; Al-Ghazali, to whom you consider yourself indebted, although he included the science of jurisprudence among the worldly sciences, and as you have read from him many times, the heart is beyond the jurisdiction of the jurist, he was very fearful lest his expressions be misused and this noble knowledge be burned in the fire of excess and injustice; therefore, he swears on his life that “And for my life, (jurisprudence) also belongs to religion.”
How ingenious it is that Al-Ghazali perceived with insight that some might use his expressions as a means of denigrating and belittling this precious science; Therefore, I would like to state three advantages for the science of jurisprudence that were not found in your written and audio sources:
The first is that it is a religious science, i.e., a benefit from prophecy
The second is that no one who follows the path to the Hereafter can do without it.
The third is that the science of jurisprudence is adjacent to the science of the Hereafter.
Dear Dr. Surush! Fulfill the right of a teacher to your students and tell and write that Ayatullah Fayz Kashani has written in “Al-Mahjjat al-Bayda’”, this beloved and praised book of yours: Indeed, a science that, according to the narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a), has appropriated one-third of the Qur’an cannot be the science of the Hereafter.
4.Regarding your absolute statements in your criticism of jurisprudence, jurists, and seminarians, it should be said: If someone first says in his first sentence: “Graduates of the humanities are careless people,” and then in his second sentence concludes: “So our neighbor, who is a graduate of the humanities, is also careless,” his statement is definitely not logical because his conclusion has fallen into the fallacy of “neglecting the wall”! That is, he has not proven in his first sentence that “all graduates are careless,” but rather, neglecting the wall of the first proposition has led him and his listeners to such a deception. Such a fallacy also occurs with regard to the knowledge of jurisprudence, that we say by neglecting the premise of the case: the jurists are far from morality in their jurisprudence, and then conclude that therefore today’s Imami jurisprudence is also far from morality, or that we say by neglecting the premise of the case: the jurists have strayed from reason, and then conclude that today’s Imami jurisprudence is also far from reason, and other such inferences are all subject to the fallacy of neglecting the premise. Because it must always be noted that jurisprudence, as a living being, plans and walks a slow and continuous movement within itself and is always moving towards perfection, and therefore the jurisprudence of the 1400s has even grown compared to the jurisprudence of the 1600s. Therefore, it is always necessary to pay careful attention to which jurisprudence is being spoken of.
5.On the one hand, I have always been the target of ridicule from some seminarians who analyze any evolutionary movement in the science of jurisprudence with fear and anxiety, and on the other hand, I have been the target of negative attention from intellectuals who have not been sufficiently familiar with the truth of religious knowledge. With my writings and incomprehensible statements, I have tried to bring both groups closer to the belief that I have in the science of jurisprudence and its precious capacities in untying the intertwined knots of the contemporary world, emphasizing its originality and contemporaneity (reliability and dynamism), but sometimes this suspicion overcomes me that for a large group of these two groups, nothing can be done except prayer and benevolence. This bitter reality can be discovered from some behaviors – which it is not expedient to point out.
6.Raising some topics at some times in terms of the meaningful interaction of the text and its context creates a meaning, and the responsibility for this lies with the speaker. Raising issues such as religion and power at a time when ISIS was bleeding and enslaving children and women, unfortunately, evoked in some minds the idea that the religion of Islam and its honorable Prophet were supporting ISIS. Of course, such is not expected from someone like Dr. Surush. It seems that this is the type of absolutist behavior and conflict-oriented approach to the narrative and jurisprudential heritage.
7.A historical look at the science of jurisprudence shows that jurisprudence is a dynamic science with an incalculable capacity and potential, the volume of which was once as large as the “al-Marasim” of Salar Daylami and the book “al-Nihayyah” of Shaykh al-Tusi, the next day as large as the book “al-Tahrir” of al-Allamah al-Helli, the last day as large as the “Miftah al-Karamah” of al-Amily, and the next day as large as the “Jawahir al-Kalam”. Neither should the day when it was as large as Shaykh al-Tusi’s al-Nihayyah be considered obsolete, nor should the day when it has become as large as the “Jawahir al-Kalam” be considered very important. These changes are clear evidence of a hidden capacity hidden in the nature of this science, a productive and enduring capacity that, whenever jurisprudence is faced with a new question, gives rise to new issues and messages. If this hidden capacity has remained hidden from religious intellectuals, it is because it cannot be caught without looking closely and passing through the shell of knowledge and grasping its essence. Therefore, there is no blame on the nobles who deny it for not believing it, but the question is why they speak and recite epics beyond their knowledge and concentration?!
8.I ask all viewers of the debate in question and the conversation not to take my words for granted in any way, to think about them and then accept or reject them. I ask the dear ones of the seminary and the university to think about what was presented to you in these debates, word for word, and if you have any criticism or opinion, to convey it to us in any possible way[1] so that the door to discussion and reflection remains open.
Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds
Qum – Seminary, Mon. 9 Dec. 2024
Abu al-Qasim Ali Dust
[1] . As of the date of writing this note, hundreds of notes, audios, classes and conversations related to this debate have emerged and are still ongoing.