From Cleric to Grand Ayatollah and Imam; Does the Clergy Consider Itself Sacred?

From Mullah and Cleric to Hojjatoleslam and Hojjatoleslamolmoslemin, and then to Ayatollah and Grand Ayatollah, and finally Imam. How has the evolution of titles and designations chosen by the group known as the clergy occurred? What capabilities do these titles stem from, and what positions and ranks do their holders attain? Critics argue that all these titles attempt to sanctify the clergy institution. In this program, we host Soroush Dabagh, a researcher in philosophy and religion, and Ahmad Kazemi Mousavi, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University, to discuss this topic. Let’s start this week’s program with Mr. Kazemi Mousavi. The question here is where the titles that the clergy receive come from and what they are rooted in, and fundamentally how attainable they are? Ahmad Kazemi Mousavi: Yes. The titles given to scholars and clerics are due to their scientific status and the academic standing they achieve. The term 'scholar' first emerged in Islam with the scholar of hadith, and 'scholar' is a general title that encompasses all. It includes all academic ranks of the jurists and scholars. From the mid-first century of Hijra, jurisprudence also emerged. There were those who had more inference in balancing the narratives and reconciling them with what is stated in the Quran, and these were jurists, and at that time, the title of judge also appeared for them. In the third century, it grew further, and the term 'Mujtahid' came into existence. I am referring to the Sunni scholars here. In Shia Islam, we had Imams, and during the presence of the Imams, there was no need for jurisprudence and ijtihad in that manner, and the title of ijtihad was not discussed until the seventh century of Hijra when Mohaghegh Helli and then Allameh Helli emerged and introduced ijtihad and brought it into Shia jurisprudence in a new style. We had an Imam and a special deputy of the Imam, and in the Sunni world, during the fourth and fifth centuries, titles like Sheikh al-Islam and Hojjatoleslam emerged, and Fakhre-Razi was also referred to as Fakhre-Islam in the Sunni world. In the Shia world, after the Imam and the special deputy of the Imam, Sheikh al-Ta'ifah came, and we did not have any other title for Shia until the Qajar period when the title Mujtahid A'lam emerged, followed immediately by the title of Marja' Taqlid. Especially during the Safavid period when Shia became the official religion of Iran, during the reign of Shah Ismail and immediately Shah Tahmasb, the title Mujtahid al-Zaman was used for the scholars of that time. This was for respect. Mr. Dabagh, you are another guest on the program. What is your view on these titles and the evolution and hierarchy that has formed for them? Soroush Dabagh: I think if you mean the titles specifically referring to the recent decades, the last forty years, it may be possible to speak about it in a different way. Because we have not had a religious government in contemporary Iran; the Safavid, Qajar, and Pahlavi periods were not religious governments. When a religious government emerged and political legitimacy arose from the religion and jurisprudence, this had implications that were not present before. Therefore, in previous periods, these titles were commensurate with the scientific weight of the personalities. Just as in the modern university system, when someone goes through the academic hierarchy and becomes an engineer in civil engineering or obtains a doctorate in the fields of experimental sciences, becomes a doctor, dentist, pharmacist, veterinarian, or obtains a doctorate in physics and chemistry, they are referred to by these titles, provided they are legitimate and not fake. There is no problem with that. After the revolution, in the four decades we have lived, we have evidence that political motivations have been at play, where someone who was a Hojjatoleslam, meaning they were at the threshold of obtaining a bachelor’s degree in the academic hierarchy, suddenly without any preparation is called Ayatollah or Grand Ayatollah or the greatest Mujtahid; these events have occurred in recent decades. And then there is a new phenomenon that has emerged in our country in the last one or two decades, a generation that is both Hojjatoleslam and has a doctorate! Without having prepared the necessary prerequisites, having written a master's thesis or doctorate, they are also called doctors. It is clear that at least in some of these cases, this title is unwarranted. A person is considered a doctor, whether in the humanities or experimental sciences, who has studied under a professor, written a thesis, and then comes to obtain a master's and doctorate. When someone has not done these things and then they are elevated, those who have neither written a thesis nor taken university courses, but have come from the religious seminary and now hold high managerial positions and are called Hojjatoleslam-doctor, it is clear that non-academic factors are at play, and experts do not take them seriously. Mr. Kazemi Mousavi, let’s return to you. I want to repeat this question with you as well. Because you mentioned the matter of judgment. Is a jurist worthy of judgment, or is it customary in modern law that a person should be a jurist, as Mr. Dabagh said, who has gone through academic ranks in the field of law and wants to engage in judgment? Are these titles necessarily related to professions? Kazemi Mousavi: Regarding judgment, as you mentioned, I was also a judge for five years in the Iranian judiciary, and it was a period of training and apprenticeship that we experienced. That is, we had two years of apprenticeship after obtaining a law degree, and this itself has its own ranks. Apprenticeship is necessary, and merely having knowledge of jurisprudence is not sufficient, but you referred to your previous statement about whether these are mere formalities or if there is a reality to them. No, these are not formalities. Society recognizes them by that title. Either Ayatollah or Hojjatoleslam, and we consider this a criterion. Our criterion is that in general, society has accepted Ghazali as Hojjatoleslam or Fakhre-Razi as Fakhre-Islam, and these have not been unrelated to their scientific standings and their work and functions. We also had Naqib, who was a type of judge. Naqib al-Ashraf was for those who were Sayyids. During the Safavid period, positions like Sadr and Sadr Khas were also established, and from then on, the term Mullah emerged. Mullah was even superior to these in some cases and even in some cases was above Sadr and Sadr Khas, and after the time of Fath Ali Shah, we had Marja' Taqlid. For Marja' Taqlid, what is now referred to as Ayatollah is not what was used at that time. In the letters of permission issued by Mohammad Taqi Majlisi and Sheikh Baha'i, they referred to Allameh Helli as Ayatollah Fi al-Alamein, and the title Ayatollah was not used for everyone, and it was said that it meant the same as Ayatollah in the two worlds... In fact, Mr. Doctor, the discussion is precisely about this. Critics believe that when someone goes through academic ranks and, for example, becomes a doctor, this is a title they acquire, but Ayatollah as someone who is a sign of God and a sign of God on earth, if we want to pay attention to the literal meaning of the word. There is a kind of sanctification embedded in this. The discussion is that you say it is not formal, the discussion is that let’s say someone is proficient in jurisprudence, why should there be a sign of God on earth? Kazemi Mousavi: Well, according to the Quran, all beings are signs of God... but we do not call all beings Ayatollah... Kazemi Mousavi: Well, this is out of respect that they are called that. And the misuse that has occurred later is in the present time. Hojjatoleslam, when we say it is not less than Ayatollah. It is a sign of Islam. All these titles are the same. However, we set aside the misuses that later occur. The title Ayatollah grew after the Constitutional Revolution. The term Ayatollah itself erodes during the time of Ayatollah Borujerdi, and the term A'zami is added to it. This is not anyone's fault or misuse. These titles erode in society. Just as right now Ayatollah has almost eroded, and Ayatollah A'zami does not seem sufficient, and other titles are also added to it, and this is not a problem. Very well, Mr. Kazemi Mousavi believes that these are not formal or exaggerated, and the term A'zami has been added because the word Ayatollah has eroded, and the interesting point he mentioned is that Ayatollah no longer seems sufficient. We reach a point where Ayatollah becomes Ayatollah A'zami, and then in the years leading up to 57, Mr. Ayatollah Khomeini becomes Imam. This means that this process of sanctification with words and giving these titles can be an endless process, and as Mr. Kazemi Mousavi said, it may not seem sufficient and become layered sacred vocabulary. I want to know your opinion on this. Soroush Dabagh: We know that in our mystical literature and past, the term spiritual has been used. When Hafez says: "Come in from the door and illuminate our night chamber / Scent the air of the assembly of the spiritual / If the jurist advises that love is forbidden / Give him a cup and say wet the nose." In that ghazal when Hafez speaks of the spiritual, he does not mean jurists. That is, the Kurobiyan. That is, the inhabitants of the sacred and chaste sanctuary of the kingdom, as he puts it. This evolution of the meaning of spiritual throughout history has turned into a profession and into those who are responsible for expressing the laws of Sharia, and sociologically, they are the guardians of the institution of religion and jurisprudence. As this story of sanctification has progressed, the way you described has become more pronounced. I remember well when Dr. Soroush delivered his controversial lecture "Expectations of the University from the Seminary" in 1992, and explained that religious knowledge is a human knowledge, well, both Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi and some other clerics attacked him. The protests against him were partly because why have you considered religious knowledge to be a human knowledge? It seemed that they felt that by considering what is taught in the seminaries as human knowledge, it is being desacralized. You pointed out a good point that if the term Ayatollah goes up, after all, the Ayats of God from the perspective of the believers are numerous, or Hojjatoleslam or Hojjat of God in the world. I want to say that the assumption is the same view that causes the sanctification of religious knowledge. The public also likes to recognize and introduce people as symbols of the sacred in the world. I think this sanctification, questioning, and unchallengeability of this group is being fueled. Mr. Kazemi Mousavi, I return to you. I want to look at the evolution of another part of the vocabulary related to the clergy, which are terms that today are not very desirable and are considered chic, and even some of these terms may be deemed offensive by the clergy. For example, previously terms like cleric or mullah were used for this group in society, but it seems that later it was preferred to replace the term cleric with it. What point can you make about this? Kazemi Mousavi: Yes. It is good that this question returns to your previous question, which is the same sanctity that has come with these words, and when the term cleric was used, it eroded, and we look at it in society in a way that has settled. The mystery or sanctity behind [the word] exists at this stage. I also do not believe that the title Ayatollah must have a sanctity behind it. This has been well articulated by Mr. Mojtahed Shabestari, who discusses what sanctity and being sacred means in his writings. In the end, we return to the respect that society gives them. We do not have that mystery and secrecy, but since the Qajar period, we see that both the clergy has come and another halo has come as a deputy of the Imam, which has created an additional respect. So that during the tobacco boycott, we see that people cried when it was said, "Using tobacco is equivalent to waging war against the Imam of the Time." It had a meaning that it seemed that the Imam of the Time was observing their actions; as Mirza Reza Karami wrote in the history of the awakening of Iranians... Mr. Kazemi Mousavi, when Ayatollah Khomeini spoke, people cried... Kazemi Mousavi: No, that crying is irrelevant. Well, usually when the orators spoke, many would shed tears. From a customary perspective, this mourning ceremony is where they cry. Well, naturally in Shia society, crying is often seen. But that sense of sanctity that we feel or as the Sufis expected, that is placed in another channel. But let’s return to your last question about mullah and cleric. Well, these have eroded, but in general, we can say that for a cleric now the title Thiqah al-Islam is because he is a preacher and recites elegies. Well, Thiqah al-Islam was first used for Kulayni in our history, and Kulayni was a famous hadith scholar, but for elegy reciters and preachers, Thiqah al-Islam is also used in our society, and this sanctity that gives them is meant to be the respect that society gives to these individuals... I, Mr. Doctor, would like to disagree with you here that society gives these titles. These titles are imposed by the clergy on society, such that for example, besides Ayatollah al-Uzma, you should not name or write that position, these are not titles that ordinary people in the street would say, "Well, you are Ayatollah al-Uzma or Imam." I think, in fact, this is imposed from top to bottom on the people.