In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
All praise is due to God, Lord of the Worlds, and may peace and greetings be upon our Master, Muhammad, and upon his pure Progeny, particularly the Remnant of God on earth.
One of the highly commendable undertakings of the Qom seminary is this commemoration ceremony which was truly overdue. There was a time when the late Mr. Naeini filled all of Najaf with his discourse and thought. But over time, he was almost entirely forgotten in the realm of scholarly work, thought, and academic renown and little attention was paid to him. Of course, we witnessed that the distinguished figures of Qom respected and honored him and his students were some of the maraje [religious authority] in Najaf. However, there was less exploration into the unique personality of Mr. Naeini (ra) himself. Now you’re doing this and, God willing, various dimensions of his scholarly life, political life, and actions will be illuminated.
The late Ayatollah Naeini was undoubtedly one of the lofty pillars of the ancient hawza [Islamic seminary] of Najaf. The hawza in Najaf — which is over a thousand years old — has certainly experienced ups and downs. There were times when great figures resided there and there were other periods when it was rather quiet and lacked prominent figures as such, in comparison with [the city of] Hillah and some other places.
However, from about two centuries ago onward, that is from the time of the students of the late Aqa Baqir Behbahani [Muhammad Baqir “Vahid” Behbahani] such as the late Bahr al-Ulum and the late Kashif al-Ghita who were in Najaf — Aqa Behbahani himself resided in Karbala, but these great and famous students of his were in Najaf and were based in Najaf — the hawza of Najaf gained renewed intellectual vitality and scholarly vigor. It went on to educate some of the most distinguished figures in the history of fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence] and usul [principles of Islamic jurisprudence]. Scholars such as Sheikh Ansari, [scholars such as] the author of Jawahir al-Kalam [Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Hussain Najafi], the late Akhund [Ayatollah Mulla Muhammad Kazim Khorasani], and other great scholars of that caliber. This revered figure — the late Mr. Naeini — stands among these [eminent] individuals. He is one of the most exceptional, outstanding figures of that era.
A key feature of his scholarly specialization in the field of fiqh and particularly in the field of usul was his gift for building a system. In other words, he articulated the fundamental principles of usul with a new structure, a novel way of thinking, a fresh organization, and with preliminary discussions for every topic. This is rarely seen in the books and works of fuqaha [Islamic jurists] and usuliyyin [scholars of principles] before him. I don’t recall anyone being so systematic and organized. For example, whenever he addressed a topic, he would introduce it with its appropriate preliminaries, proceed through it in a structured sequence, and finish [the discussion] in a polished manner.
Perhaps the reason for the rush of students and scholars to his classes, which was one of the top-tier classes in Najaf after the time of the late Akhund [Khorasani], was this intellectual discipline, methodological order, and his eloquent delivery. And despite the fact that he would teach the usul in Farsi in Najaf — [a rare practice] in Najaf where lessons were typically conducted in Arabic — his lectures still drew large numbers of Arab students.
Of course, I personally wasn’t fortunate enough to witness this, but I heard that the late Sheikh Hussain Hilli (ra) who was pure Arab, used to teach his own usul class in Farsi because he had learned it from his teacher in that language. So this is the kind of eloquence in expression and brilliance in thought that existed in him [Ayatollah Naeini].
His advancements in the fundamental principles of usul were truly remarkable and abundant. His advancements in the various discussions of usul are vast in quantity. This includes both matters related to the teachings of the late Sheikh Ansari that he clarified and articulated and also the ideas he himself presented on various matters of usul. These are worthy of scholarly discussion. This was the first matter.
In my opinion, one of the important characteristics of the late Mr. Naeini was his way of educating students. I haven’t seen many people [who have done this so well]. Among the renowned scholars of this contemporary era, the late Akhund Khorasani certainly had many outstanding students. They weren’t merely numerous, they were distinguished students and the late Mr. Naeini was the same. He had numerous distinguished students. Educating prominent students is very important.
In the years that come to my mind — around 1377 AH [1957] — virtually all the maraje of Najaf at that time were his students — including Mr. Khoei [Ayatollah Sayyid Abolqasem Khoei], the late Mr. Hakim [Ayatollah Sayyid Mohsen Hakim], the late [Ayatollah] Sayyid Abdul-Hadi, and others of that era, such as the late Mirza Baqir Zanjani, Sheikh Hussain Hilli, the late Mirza Hassan Bojnourdi, and others. These distinguished, eminent figures were all students of Mr. Naeini.
Of course some were also counted as being academically affiliated with other great scholars, like the late Mr. Hakim who was also one of the distinguished students of Aqa Zia. However, the majority of these great scholars, these maraje, these great personalities, were students of the late Mr. Naeini. This ability to educate a large number of prominent students is one of his defining characteristics. These were the things I wanted to say regarding his scholarly qualities.
There is one truly exceptional aspect of Ayatollah Naeini’s character, something that none of our more recent maraje had — and to my recollection, none of the earlier ones had either — and that is his political thought. Political “thought” is different from political “inclination.” Some scholars had a political inclination. The late Mr. Akhund [Khorasani], the late Sheikh Abdullah Mazandarani, and others of that period had political inclinations. In those days, political inclinations even existed among the seminary students. This was largely due to the influence of the newspapers that came from Egypt, the Levante, and similar places, which circulated in the libraries of Najaf. And those publications were shaped by the thoughts of Sayyid Jamal, Muhammad Abduh, and others like them who introduced new discussions.
The late Aqa Najafi Quchani recounts in his memoirs that there were many seminary students with political inclinations at that time. There were also scholars who had political inclinations. But a political inclination, a political interest, or even talking about politics is one thing, while political thought is something else. Ayatollah Naeini possessed political thought, he had a political intellect.
His book Tanbih al-Ummah has really been neglected. May God bless the late Ayatollah Taleghani [Sayyid Mahmud Taleghani] who reprinted this book. Otherwise the earlier edition, which was, as we’ve heard, withdrawn from circulation, was of a very low quality and was outdated. He [Ayatollah Taleghani] reprinted it, added footnotes, and did things of that sort. But even now this book remains neglected even though it is an important work. I will now briefly refer to some of the points he outlined in that book.
First, he believed in the establishment of an Islamic government. The formation of an Islamic government in itself is a thought. Of course, he didn’t specify the form of the government, but he explicitly stated in his remarks in Tanbih al-Ummah that an Islamic government must be established. That’s one point which is extremely important.
Second, [he identifies] the core point of such an Islamic government as being the principle of wilayah [divinely ordained leadership of the Muslims]. He refers to it as the hukumat-e wilayiyyah [a government based wilayah], in contrast to malikiyyat-e istibdadiyyah [usurped despotic governance]. I believe he uses such a phrase to contrast the government of wilayah — the Islamic wilayah government — with despotic governance. This means that the model, substance, and spirit of governance is "wilayah" which is a very important matter in itself and one that deserves much discussion. He explicitly stated this. This is the second point.
The next highly important point concerns "national supervision.” He holds that the government must be subject to supervision. All those in positions of authority have responsibilities and must be monitored. So who should do this supervision? In his terminology, it is a majlis-e mabuthan [assembly of delegates] that should function as the legislative body. The majlis-e mabuthan by definition, is equivalent to Consultative Majlis and [bodies] of that sort.
Who forms the Delegates Majlis? The people. They hold elections and the Delegates Majlis is formed. The Delegates Majlis then enacts laws, but that legislation lacks validity unless it is approved by distinguished religious scholars — that is, the Guardian Council. This is how he explains it. He clearly states that laws passed by the Delegates Majlis aren’t valid until they’re endorsed by religious scholars and Islamic jurists.
Now, [he said] this Delegates Majlis must be elected by the people. He stated that public elections are mandatory since they are a muqaddimah al-wajib [religiously obligatory precondition]. He explicitly used the term muqaddimah al-wajib, explaining that since it is a religiously obligatory precondition, the elections become obligatory as well. [In his argument,] he also emphasized enjoining good and forbidding evil, accountability, and full responsibility [of the believers toward their society.]
He outlines and presents a form of government as political thought that it’s first and foremost a government, that is, it is authority and power. Second, it’s from the people, that is, the people elect it. And third, it conforms to religious concepts and divine laws, which means that it’s meaningless without them. In essence, it’s an Islamic government from the people. If we were to describe this Islamic government from the people in today's terms, it would correspond to what we now call the "Islamic Republic:" "Republic" [means] it’s from the people and "Islamic" means it’s Islamic.
Of course, he never comes close to or articulates such terminology, but his point is as follows. A government is formed by a group of devout, righteous, faithful individuals, by way of the people's vote and under stringent public supervision. The officials of every sector are designated, held accountable, and required to answer to the people. Furthermore, those delegates must legislate, and their laws have no validity without the approval of religious scholars. These were the points that he spoke of. This is a very important matter.
We read the commentaries and writings of the great Ayatollah Naeini, we benefit from them, we learn from them, and we teach them, but we don’t give due attention to the jurisprudential principles [that underlie his political thought.] What’s interesting is that his words aren’t mere rhetoric. Rather, he engages in genuine discussions of jurisprudence. In other words, everything we’ve mentioned, he presents and proves on the basis of jurisprudential principles, like a true faqih speaking from within the discipline. He does this with the same concern, precision, and careful consideration that a faqih must have and must take into account both the textual implications and religious sources, as well as the urfi [customary] considerations. He proceeds in this matter exactly as is customary and common in jurisprudence.
I believe this is one of a kind. We simply don’t have anyone among our own scholars who is like that. The late Mr. Akhund [Khorasani], who wrote an endorsement for this book, gave his complete approval. Akhund himself was not an inconsequential person and he completely endorsed this book. I presume he read the book and benefited from it. That is, he actually made use of this book. The book Tanbih al-Ummah is a very important book in our opinion. So, these were some of his characteristics.
Now, the next matter is about those who caused this book to be withdrawn from circulation — apparently this did happen. Because aside from rumors, we had heard from people who were in Najaf and from the friends of my late father who were also from Najaf and used to visit and knew about the matter that he [Ayatollah Naeini] painstakingly collected the book [to remove it from circulation]. He bought every copy he could find so that it would no longer exist. What was the reason for this?
It would be extremely naive to think that a faqih of such authority in jurisprudence and with such a power of reasoning would write a book and then later reverse his opinion to the extent that he would collect the book [to remove it from circulation]. That would make absolutely no sense at all. Fuqaha [Islamic jurists] do sometimes change their jurisprudential views, but there has to be another reason for someone to collect their own book. The reason was that the Constitutional Movement that had been discussed in Najaf — for which the late Akhund [Khorasani] staked his entire reputation, as did the late Sheikh Abdollah Mazandarani and others — was entirely different from what eventually came to pass [in Iran].
The term "constitutional" itself wasn’t even mentioned [in their discussions]. What they were seeking was a government based on justice, the abolition of despotism, and struggle against tyranny. The term "constitutional" and other similar words were introduced by the British. Both the name and the model of conduct were designed by them.
And of course, when the British do something, it’s obvious where it will lead to. It leads to divisions and various conflicts, and ultimately it leads to events such as the hanging of Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri, the assassination of the late Sayyid Abdullah Behbahani, and the elimination of figures like Sattar Khan and Baqir Khan in different ways. When these events were reported in Najaf, these scholars regretted their support for that movement. I believe that the late Ayatollah Naeini found himself in precisely the same situation. He realized that through his own scholarly, jurisprudential, well-reasoned book, he had [inadvertently] lent support to something he didn’t believe in. Something he now had to oppose. And that "something" was the “constitutionalism” which the British had established in Iran, the “parliament” they’d formed, and the subsequent events that followed, such as the [murder and] martyrdom of the late Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri and others like him.
I believe he was an exceptional faqih and a great scholar. Academically, he was at a very high level. As for his life, certain things have been said about his spiritual knowledge, his asceticism, and similar traits have been narrated about him. I heard — or rather, it has been said — that he was also in contact with the late Akhund Molla Hossein-Qoli. When he would travel from Samarra to Najaf, he would visit the late Akhund Molla Hossein-Qoli. He was also in contact with the late Molla Fath-Ali who was in Samarra, which was of a different kind.
In any case, he was in contact with distinguished figures of this nature. When he was in Isfahan, he was also in contact with the late Jahangir Khan and others like him. It’s said that he even studied under Jahangir Khan, showing he was also versed in philosophy and similar disciplines.
He was a man of spiritual depth. A few days ago, I heard something from some gentlemen who quoted some noble individuals about Mr. Naeini’s extraordinary night prayer [tahajjud]. The late Aqa Najafi was his son-in-law who lived in Hamedan. He was a part of the family and had witnessed this personally. He described Mirza Naeini’s night prayer, the state he was in during them, his humility, his supplications, and his deep spiritual state. These things existed and, of course, it is these very things that help one find the right path, move along that path, and achieve results.
We hope that God willing, this very interesting gathering of yours — whether it’s held in Qom, Najaf, or Mashhad [will be successful]. It’s good that you’ve also organized efforts in Mashhad. The late Mr. Milani [Ayatollah Sayyid Mohammad Hadi Milani] truly revived Mr. Naeini's name in Mashhad. This is because what was most prevalent in Mashhad due to the presence of the late Aqazadeh — the son of the late Akhund [Khorasani] — was the thoughts of Akhund. Of course, after the late Mirza Mahdi Isfahani — who was one of the distinguished students of the late Mirza [Naeini] — came to Mashhad, he broke the dominant hold of Akhund's ideas by introducing Mr. Naeni's discourses, which contained new ideas, new arguments, and new lines of reasoning.
My late father, who had studied under both Mr. Aqazadeh and the late Mirza Mahdi [Isfahani] for years, used to say that when Mirza Mahdi came to Mashhad, the entire intellectual atmosphere regarding the topic of usul in Mashhad, where the ideas of the late Akhund were prevalent, had completely changed. However, after the late Mirza Mahdi’s passing, Mr. Naeini's name was no longer mentioned. Mr. Milani would quote the ideas of the late Mr. Naeini, discuss them, sometimes even critique them, but more often affirm them. In any case, you did the right thing by establishing a branch in Mashhad as well — and as for Najaf, well, that goes without saying. I hope that, God willing, Almighty God grants you all success and your actions will be accepted.
May God’s greetings, mercy, and blessings be upon you.
