Sayyid Murtada’s Personality, Innovations and Influences In an Interview with Hojjat ol-Islam Dr. Mohammad Taqi Sobhani
Prologue
Dr. Mohammad Taqi Sobhani was born in Shiraz in ۱۹۶۳. He started his studies in the seminary school in Qom in ۱۹۸۲. His professors were Haj Sheikh Javad Tabrizi, Vahid Khorasani, Seyyed KazemHa’ri, Hasanzadeh Amoli, Javadi Amoli, and MesbahYazdi.
He studied the Philosophy of Religion at M.A. level in Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute. He also attended Tarbiyat Modarres University in Qom and has an M.A. degree in the major of Islamic Philosophy and a Ph.D. degree in Comparative Philosophy.
Besides teaching and doing research in the mentioned fields, he has also cooperated effectively with a number of education and research institutes:
۱. Research manager of Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute and a faculty member of the department of religious studies (۱۹۹۴ – ۱۹۹۶);
۲. Manager of the Islamic research institute of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (۱۹۹۴ – ۲۰۰۱)
۳. The head of the Islamic Science and Culture Institute and the research assistant of The Islamic Propagation Office (۲۰۰۱ – ۲۰۰۹);
۴. Research manager of the research faculty of theology in the Qur’an and Hadith Institute (since ۲۰۱۱ until now).
۵. The head of the Islamic Theology Community (۲۰۱۰ – ۲۰۱۳);
۶. The manager of the Al-Hizarah in Lebanon (Since ۲۰۱۰ until now);
۷. The manager of the Cultural Foundation of Imamate (Since ۲۰۱۱ until now).
We arranged an interview with him about Sayyid Murtada’s Character, especially from the theological view, and also about his innovations and influences.
What do you think about Sayyid Murtada’s status among the Shiite scholars?
In the Name of God, the Compassionate the Merciful
I ask for His assistance, and I salute to Mohammad and his pure family.
In a brief description of Sayyid Murtada’s character, we can say that he was one of the prime figures in the Shiite world and history. In other words, he is certainly among the first ten outstanding Shiite characters through the history. I will explain more about this through the answers to your next questions. But for now, we can say that Sayyid Murtada was a character who developed a new school of thought. He is not just a thinker and theoretician; rather he organized the Shiite thought framework both in theology and in fiqh. This is his distinctive feature among many Shiite characters.
Of course, it is believed that the Imamiyah theology and fiqh was developed after the termination of Imam Mahdi’s appearance, by Sayyid Murtada’s teacher, Sheikh Mufid; however, as I will explain more, Sayyid Murtada was the one who practically strengthened the scientific and methodological framework of the approach. He even transformed it basically and changed the Shiite thought into a scientific school. Therefore, Sayyid Murtada, is an important turning point in the history of the Shiite theology and fiqh, as well; so that, in many discussions, including the epistemological and methodological framework, Sayyid Murtada almost detaches his past from the future, and brings about innovations in a lot of discussions.
Would you please explain more about Sayyid Murtada’s innovations and creativities?
Sayyid Murtada enjoyed a number of characteristics, the combination of which possibly made him an outstanding figure in the history of the Shiites. First, he had a comprehensive scientific position, i.e. he was an expert in almost all of the Islamic sciences at his own age.
Furthermore, Sayyid Murtada had an influential social presence. This feature distinguishes him from the previous scholars, e.g. Sheikh Mufid, and the subsequent scholars, e.g. Sheikh Tusi. After the termination of Imam Mahdi’s appearance, he was possibly the first among the Shiite scholars who officially accepts social-political responsibilities. The position of “niqabat” (the leadership of the descendents of the prophet PBUH in the Abbasside Court, paved the ground for his relation and communication with the Sunnite ruling system and also a number of the important Sunnite characters. Therefore, Sayyid’s social and influential character was completely outstanding among his current figures at that period of the history. I think Sayyid Murtada was outstanding not only in terms of the social presence, but also in terms of theory and social system. I think he was the first one at this level who officially writes the permission treaties concerning the cooperation with the sultan, and shows that cooperation with an unjust ruler is permissible, and sometimes even necessary, under specific conditions.
His third characteristic is his emphasis on the scientific methodology. Possibly, this is the point where he detaches from the preceding Shiite history, both in theology and in fiqh. Sayyid attempted to establish the methodological principles which approximated the religious understanding between the Shiites and the Sunnites, and resulted in a methodological understanding. We will talk about the results of this issue later. Sayyid attempted to focus on the common principles among the Shiite and Sunnite scholars. Meanwhile, he intelligently tried to employ these principles for supporting the Shiite instructions.
For instance, rationalization of the methodology of theology, which was developed one step forward by Sayyid Murtada after Sheikh Mufid, is an index of such a view. Sayyid Murtada exploited the principles common and acceptable both in Mo’tazilah and Shi’ah, including the necessity of the view (vojoub-e nazar), the principle of God’s Grace, impossibility of the exposure of two powers on a single object of power, etc. This methodology was not limited to theology. In fiqh, Sayyid Murtada rejected the validity of isolated traditions, founded the theory of the validity of widely-transmitted traditions, and emphasized a lot on the validity of consensus and other principles. In this way he tried to approximate the Sunnite and Shiite fiqh principles.
His other characteristic is that, along with all these approximations and attempts for mutual methodological understanding with the Sunnites, he keeps the distance with the Sunnite theology and fiqh in terms of the content. That is to say the methodological approximation never was supposed to mean content and scientific approximation; rather, Sayyid Murtada is an outstanding figure who was pioneer in strengthening the Shiite theological and fiqh principles and clearly determines his position in confrontations with the Sunnite rivals.
Sayyid Murtada’s further attempt in theology was “the attempt to delimit the number of the claims of the Imamiyah theology”. Before the Baghdad school of thought, the Imamiyah theology was very far from the other theological trends, especially the Sunnite one, and Sayyid Murtada tried to focus and emphasize on a number of the common principles and ignore some of the features of the Imamiyah belief. To this end, he did two things: methodologically, he appealed to the principles also approved by the others; in terms of content, instead of dealing with the details claimed by the Imamiyah, which were formerly prevalent in our thought schools in Kufa and Qom, he emphasized on the principles from Imamiyah theology which could support and uphold the Shiite thought. I call this approach: delimiting the claims of the Imamiyah theology”.
Apparently, Some of Sayyid’s works were innovative and were unprecedented in the history of Shiite theology before him. You already referred to a number of such cases; please put more emphasis on such innovations by him.
Of course, some of these innovations are not basically developed by Sayyid Murtada, himself; rather, they are inspiration by other scholars’ experiences and thoughts. Sayyid Murtada localized them and added them to the Imamiyah thought. For example methodologically, Sayyid Murtada places more emphasis on reasoning and minimizes or denies the need for the dependence of reasoning to revelation. It is known that before Sayyid Murtada, the methodology in the Imamiyah theology, even in Sheikh Mufid’s thought, was to a great extent dependent on the revelatory texts; and the Shiite scholars, along with the emphasis on the independence of reasoning, continually appealed to the revelatory sources for the expansion and deepening of the rational knowledge, known as Sam’ (authoritarian) among the earlier scholars. Sayyid Murtada strongly confronts this view in his works, and highlights the independence of reasoning from traditions.
One further particular principle for Sayyid Murtada is denying the emergency knowledge and limiting the knowledge to the acquired knowledge. This issue is somehow related to denying the former worlds (the world of souls and the world of preexistence), which is another view of Sayyid’s. Of course in the last two discussions, he is to a great extent in debt to his teacher, Sheikh Mufid. However, what distinguishes Sayyid easily from his teacher, is his denial of the independent soul and “the belief in embodiment” concerning the truth of human being. In the history of the Shiites, this idea was first presented by him, and formerly it was prevalent just among the Mo’tazilah.
Apparently, the denial of invalidity of the isolated tradition was first proposed in the thoughts of Imamiyah. Of course, during the presence of Imam Mahdi, the Shiites believed in the invalidity of the isolated traditions; however, such a belief of invalidity before Sayyid Murtada was concerned with the traditions, which (as the Sunnites say) were narrated by single narrators. Shiekh Mufid provided an explanation for the issue: if the isolated tradition is not yet reached the threshold of being considered as widely transmitted, and yet it is accompanied with absolute evidences, then it is valid based on the Shiite principles. However, Sayyid Murtada completely rejected the validity of the isolated traditions, and he did not even approved that isolated traditions may be valid based on the evidences. Therefore, Sayyid Murtada founded this new belief among the Shiites that only widely transmitted traditions are valid.
One, more innovation by Sayyid Murtada was his great emphasis on the principle of “certainty”. He believed that all the scientific endeavors both in theology and fiqh should result in certainty. For him, achieving certainty necessitated some instruments and methods some of which were different from the history of the Imamiyah thought.
One more innovative addition to the thought of the Imamiyah by Sayyid Murtada is the issue of “consensus”. He believes that, under certain conditions, consensus can bring about certainty. Regardless of the methodological issues, it can almost be said that in many theological issues, Sayyid Murtada proposed novel explanations. Few issues can be found concerning which Sayyid Murtada did not invest extra effort. Of course, it is necessary to mention that our judgment in this regard cannot be perfect; because the theological inheritance before Sayyid Murtada is not available, and we do not know whether some of Sayyid Murtada’s novel ideas had also been proposed before him or not. However, it can be said that all in all Sayyid Murtada dealt with every single issue in theology and even in fiqh, and he tried to strengthen and implement his own novel epistemological and theological framework.
Please explain about the influences left in the Shiite society by Sayyid Murtada at his own age.
As it was mentioned besides “scientific foundation”, Sayyid Murtada was an influential character in the Shiite society at his own age and caused developments. There are a lot of great characters whose thoughts resulted in gradual changes through the history of the seminary schools; however, Sayyid Murtada rapidly impressed his current society and gained the status of the standard for the Shiite thought, because of his social status and the familial relationship with the groups who controlled the power of the society of Baghdad at that period (on the one hand with the Zeidites and on the other hand with the caliphate system) and also because of his particular personal characteristics and his extraordinary spiritual and material influence in his current society. For example, Sayyid Murtada was Sheikh Mufid’s students and showed great reverence toward him; however, almost all of Sheikh Mufid’s students, especially the younger ones of them, were impressed by Sayyid Murtada and chose him to follow. For instance, Abu al-Salah Halabi, Sheikh Tusi and … tended to follow Sayyid Murtada in theology.
The other very important point concerning Sayyid’s influence is that his framework in theology and his views remained alive for five centuries as the criterion for the Shiite thought. Such endurance for a theological school is possibly unique in the history of the thought of Imamiyah.
The major Shiite theological schools are the Baghdad school and the Qom school. What are the features of these two schools of thought?
I will explain in detail about this issue later. The common point of these two schools is that they are two parallel approaches developed in two different spaces as a result of development and reformation of the Imamiyah theological and fiqh schools. In other words, the comprehensive development of the Imamiyah theological and fiqh thought is in debt of these two schools, which, of course had two different approaches. The Qom school is our inheritance in theology and hadith and aims at extracting our thought system from the Qur’an and the prophet’s conduct and it introduces the particular features for Imamiyah as the indexes of the school; however in Baghdad school, the main emphasis is on the common principles through which it aims to propagate the Imamiyah thought beyond the denominational society. In other words, we can say that these two schools aim at two different theological targets; the Qom school clarifies the thoughts of the Imamiyah and presents them to the Shiite society; while the Baghdad school tries to refine those thoughts and present them to the society beyond the Shiism.
These two approaches develop two different methodologies in understanding theology, and therefore they lead us toward two different thought systems. Besides the methodological aspect, another difference between these two schools is that the Baghdad school tries to penetrate the Shiite thought in non-Shiite society; therefore, it appeals to the minimum amount of the Imamiyah theology. However, the appeal of the Qom school is maximalist because it acts intra-Shiistically.
Furthermore, the followers of the Qom school insistently emphasis on our hadith inheritance and therefore they study and scrutinize it and eventually provide a purified collection of this inheritance; on the other hand, the Baghdad school plays the same role in the realm of reasoning and tries to edit and systematize the rational principles of the Imamiyah.
Considering the difference between the Baghdad and Qom schools in theory and practice, which one do you prefer?
As I mentioned, each of these two schools has its own advantages and deficiencies. If I want to express my idea explicitly, I should say that one of the epistemological/scientific crises in the Shiite society is this very same noticeable gap, which developed since the period of development of Qom and Baghdad schools. That is to say, the approach which formerly in the Kufa school had developed into a culminated and compound methodology concerning the Imamiyah thought, changed into two different methodologies and ripped the Shiite scientific society into two pieces.
We need a dynamic combination of the two methodologies of Qom and Baghdad. This necessitates developing a system based on the achievements of these two schools. Unfortunately, separating the tradition-based and reasoning-based approaches in these two schools has continued up to the present time and we have not succeeded to amend this damage. We need to borrow the ijtihad-based approach, text-based understanding and scrutiny in refining the revelatory sources and texts from the Qom school; and we have to follow the Baghdad school in developing and presenting an epistemological system.
It seems that these two tasks are possible considering the potentials of our scientific society; besides, the Shiites have no other choice under the present conditions.
Which part of Sayyid Murtada’s thoughts and policies do you think is more useful for us today?
I think current Shiite society needs the same reform that Sayyid Murtada performed in Baghdad back at that time. Our condition today is very similar to that of Baghdad at that period. At that time, the Shiites became powerful after a period of inactivity, and they enjoyed a new situation for presence and causing influence. Sayyid Murtada took the chance, exploited the alterable and flexible situation in Baghdad and presented “a new clarification and reading of the Shiite thought”. The clarification perfectly preserved the Shiite principles; meanwhile it was understandable for the others and the opponents. Today, we need to follow part of Sayyid Murtada’s model and rearrange the Shiite thought system in accordance with the needs of the current non-Shiite audience.
The second point that can be used as a model is Sayyid Murtada’s “social presence”, i.e. a Shiite scholar, along with theorization, can use his social position and power for the expansion of his thoughts.
The other useful principle of Sayyid Murtada is the emphasis on “the real inheritance of the Shiite thought”. Unfortunately, one of our serious problems is that our scientific characters either detach themselves from the world outside and focus on the internal world (which results in a kind of distance from the reality and tendency toward abstract thinking); or as a result of shallowness of their character, they rapidly experience a change in their viewpoints and they give up their theoretical framework. Sayyid Murtada is a figure who interacts with various thought groups and he even courageously borrows their methodological principles; meanwhile, he never retreats from his principles. A clear instance for this is his firm emphasis on the issue of “imamate”. The issue of imamate in Sayyid Murtada’s thought and also his confrontation with some characters, such as Qazi ‘Abdol-Jabbar, are instructive. The issue of imamate is a fundamental principle for Sayyid Murtada and he does not withdraw from it. The other example is the issue of “disassociation”. Unlike what some people may think, Sayyid Murtada, in spite of taking a proximate approach (in the meaning I explained), takes one of the most radical stands concerning the issue of disassociation, and he completely highlights the viewpoint of the Ahl ol-Bayt in front of the opponent party, and he insists on it as a borderline.
At the end, please add any point you may have left unmentioned.
My last piece of talk includes a number of recommendations to the scholars who do research in this line. I think we have not yet studied Sayyid Murtada’s character comprehensively. Of course, there have been some researches but they are imperfect. Hopefully, these researches will result in permanent works which can introduce Sayyid Murtada’s character appropriately in all aspects.
I also recommend that the researchers in the field of theology get acquainted with Sayyid Murtada’s theological literature appropriately. Unfortunately, our seminary schools have, for centuries, forgotten about the theological literature before Sheikh Tusi. Presently, even some outstanding professors and researchers cannot understand Sayyid Murtada’s works appropriately. Therefore, sometimes his works are misunderstood. I emphasize that the theological literature before Sheikh Tusi is completely different from the literature after him. The researchers should not be misled by the similar terminologies, each of which has been used in a different sense. Therefore, we need to prepare a glossary of “the terminology of the Imamiyah theology during Sayyid Murtada’s period”. Providing such a work in the congress or in the sideline may be a valuable achievement for the next generation.
I thank you and your colleagues who are involved in such a great scientific and cultural service.
Thank you very much for your time.
