News Date:  2012 February 29  
In a meeting with professors of the University of Mazandaran and the officials of the International Department of Hawzah, Ayatullah Javadi Amoli stated:
The most important concern in civilizing a system is the religiousness of its universities

During the meeting, Grand Ayatullah Javadi Amoli delivered his speech on Islamization of universities and human sciences, stating:

The most important concern in civilizing a system is the civilization and religiousness of its universities; that university is civilized which is religious. Religiousness of a university lies in its first words to say, i.e. in science and knowledge. Universities may endeavor to educate Muslim students, establish prayer rooms, Quranic conferences, Kumail supplication every night before Fridays and Tawassul prayer at certain nights; similarly, universities may celebrate the birthday anniversary of the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them all) or hold mourning events for their martyrdom anniversaries. The above, however, are all to train Muslims not to Islamicize universities. These fall within the duty of Mosques and Hussainias. The first word expressed by universities is knowledge. Therefore, unless knowledge is Islamicized, we will have no Islamic university. It is one thing to educate Muslim students; it is another to Islamicize universities. The other point is that to Islamicize universities does not mean that the Holy Name of Allah be printed on the first page of the books and on the teaching material, that books start with an “In the Name of Allah” to which an emblem of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a photo of Imam Khomeini or the Leader may be added; these never Islamicize the content of books. Unless knowledge and sciences are Islamicized, universities will not become Islamic.

Some are of the view that science is neither Islamic nor non-Islamic. Such a view exists not only in Iran but also in certain other countries such as Malaysia. There was a conference in Malaysia whose secretary said: “I begin my lecture with a humor until we get to the conclusion”. There were many national and international guests participating in the conference. Based on his false thought and fancy, he said: “Gentlemen! Do we have Muslim and non-Muslim bicycles?” All laughed, including himself, and he further added: “Do we have riding a bicycle in an Islamic and non-Islamic manner? Meaning that a Muslim bicycle rider is to pedal one way and a non-Muslim pedal another way?” He made them laugh and further laughed and the answer was “No”, and that there are neither Islamic bicycles nor Islamic bicycle riding. The third was that the bicycle rider is either a Muslim or a non-Muslim. This was the humor he started, saying: “That is the same for industry too. Nature is the same; there is no Islamic and non-Islamic land; it is the geologist who is either Muslim or unbeliever. There is no Islamic ocean or oceanography; it is the oceanographer who is either Muslim or unbeliever. There is no Islamic physics; the physicist is either Muslim or unbeliever.” The lecturer went on to add similar instances and the audience applauded for him reaching the conclusion that Islamization of universities is meaningless and Islamization of knowledge and science alike. The conclusion was reached by them because they were far away from both the Quran and Itrat. They had not grasped the true meaning of Islamic knowledge. You, my dears, and all of us should make our best to, by the blessing of the efforts of Imam Khomeini and the bloods of our martyrs, live as Muslims and travel as Muslims, educate university students as Muslims, students who are the Divine deposit with us and our children. More importantly, we must know our mission to be Islamization of universities, which is a cultural jihad. Unless it becomes clear that science is Islamic, universities cannot be Islamic.

In response to the doubt posed as whether there is an Islamic science or not, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli stated:

The second point of discussion is whether there exists an Islamic science and knowledge.

As you know, every science deals with and speaks of its related subject and domain. That is to say, geology can neither say that it is Islamic nor non-Islamic; it cannot even cast doubt as it has no right to cast doubt. Why? Because each of the sciences, including geology, oceanography, astrology, chronology and botany are of a subject, a predicate and a relation. Such sciences argue in an enclosed circle. Islam is for the entire world. Does the universe have God or not? A physicist has no right to speak of any of the above propositions (rejection, confirmation, doubt). Sometimes a physicist or a scientist in another realm has a philosophical worldview; then, he is beyond the domain of physics, geology and oceanography. He has indeed raised his head and is viewing the world. This is a philosophical thought and no more geology or physics. However, as long as he is down into his discussions on physics, chemistry, chronology and the Earth, he is arguing in a closed circle. Here, he has no right to say God exists, because he has no way to prove it. If he wants to say there is no God, he still has no means of proof, and so he has no right to say it. If he wants to cast doubt on the existence of God, he has no means to prove anything, so has no right to say that, all because he is moving in this closed circle. Let us give a simile through which we can reach the real meaning, to show who is right. Take a bascule by which trucks are weighed. It can weigh trucks of say 50-60 tons maximum. It has a limited capacity and if it wants to show the weight of the Earth, it cannot and so it has no right to do so; it can even not reject nor cast doubt on the weight of the Earth, only because the weight of the Earth is beyond the capacity of such a bascule. As for a physicist or a chemist, as long as he is enclosed within the realm of physics and chemistry, he has no right to prove, reject or cast doubt on the existence of God. But if he views beyond that limited domain and starts having a philosophical view, he will be possessed of a world view; i.e. he becomes a philosopher and not a physicist. It is a philosopher who argues for or against the existence of God. It is only the philosopher’s right to discuss the three issues of proving, rejecting or casting doubt on the existence of God. Whichever of these he discusses, it is his right to do so.

 

In world view, if, God forbid, a philosopher goes astray, he will become atheist. The reason is when philosophy first enters into discussions, it is secular; secular which means non-conditioned, and not anti-religion, because it has not yet proved religion and God. It has neither proved nor rejected, but is only in ignorance. If the philosopher, God forbid, goes astray, he reaches atheism. The first harm that he causes is to defame itself and become an atheist philosophy. Then, it blackens all other sciences and becomes anti-religion. That is to say, a physicist who explicitly says that religion is a myth, from which origin has he borrowed this belief? He has borrowed it from an atheist philosopher. Once the atheist philosophy reaches where it says there is no God, no Resurrection, no Revelation, and no Prophethood, and that whatever exists is nature and no more, then you’ll see that in universities they say natural sciences and no more. Natural sciences arise from materialistic naturalism in its specific sense, and materialistic naturalism is for sure anti-religion and non-religious. In their opinion, nature does not take a religious name and it is not secular meaning non-conditioned but secular with only one condition, i.e. rejection (of religion).

Allameh Javadi further added: but if, God-willing, philosophy does not go astray and steps in the straight path  and proves for itself that there is a God, a Resurrection, Revelation and  Prophethood, the first service that this philosophy provides is to make itself honored and become a Divine philosophy; it then makes all sciences Divine. Then we will have no non-religious sciences. Why not? Because such a philosophy takes the nature and throws it out. It says there is nothing called nature but whatever is is creation. Knowledge and understanding of creation cannot be non-religious; creation means God’s action. That is to say when a geologist or an oceanographer argues, he gradually enters the discussions that God did such and such. In seminaries, we discuss exegeses. Why is exegesis a religious science? Because in exegesis moment by moment we say that God said such and so. As for a university professor who moment by moment says God said such and so, if his statements are not more religious than ours, at least he is making statements at the level of ours. Is it possible to provide a non-religious interpretation of creation and of God’s action? Then all sciences will become interpretation of God’s action, and we will have no non-religious sciences. A certain professor might be irreligious but he is interpreting God’s action. Nature and natural sciences will go away then. Whatever is in the world is created. Knowledge of the creation is not non-religious. We will have no non-religious knowledge and sciences then. Such notions and concepts, therefore, if inserted in course books and teaching materials, and if the instructor is aware that he is interpreting God’s action, science and university will become religious.

In what comes from the West, we see that creation is put aside and replaced with nature. By natural sciences, the light of Reason, as a religious argument, is usurped and plundered. They say this is humanistic and religion is summarized in narration. They expect that whatever is religious should appear in narratives; i.e. if we read prayers, and we believe the Earth has been created by God, and the Earth goes around the Sun, such a Reason is religious and if it is discovered by Reason, it is not religious. Most of these people talk in Islam but think as Korah thought. Korah said the same. When Moses, the Interlocutor of Allah (peace be upon him), told him to pay his financial duties, he said: «إِنَّمَا أُوتِیتُهُ عَلَی عِلْمٍ عِندِی» (I have been given this only on account of the knowledge I have). I made my efforts and I found it. Such a vanity is what many of us in seminaries and at universities say. For instance, we say we have studied for some thirty or forty years, we have burned the midnight oil. We assume Reason and intellect is ours, but we ignore the fact that Reason is a light and the One who has created us has lit this light within us (first); he has sent the prophets to raise the wick «یثیروا لهم دفائن العقول» (To raise the treasures of their minds) (second); this will become a religious argument (third); and it is not possible for anyone to understand anything with his Mind unless he acts according to his religious obligations (fourth). Neither in a submarine nor in an airplane can one say that I have created it myself and I have discovered it myself, and so I want to act in such and so manner. The response to them would be no! The knowledge God has granted to you is like a verse of the Quran, you should act according to the knowledge. Such knowledge is a religious argument and proof. If Reason is a religious proof, Man is bound to act according to what has been discovered by him, otherwise there will be the hell. So, it is made clear now that Reason is a religious argument and proof. Thus, Man flies and sees with two wings or with two lights. The two lights discover what God revealed to the prophets. Revelation has no equal. No one can claim this is based on Reason; it is, rather, based on Revelation and Revelation has no opposite. Prophets and Imams have no opposites. Philosophers, theosophist and theologians are in the opposite direction of experts of jurisprudence and scholars of hadith, and not, God forbid, opposites to the prophets. The latter have an impeccable and visionary knowledge. It is narration which stands vis-à-vis Reason and it is Reason which stands vis-à-vis narration.

Some people are either ignorant or are told to cast such a doubt. They argue that if we say science is religious, when some mistake is found, it will go back to religion. However, they are ignorant of the fact that it is not the science which makes a mistake but it is the scientist. Once it was said that Sun moves around the Earth and later it became known that it is the Earth which moves; here, it is the scientist who has made a mistake not the science. Creation is orderly (first); knowledge is the relation between the unknown and the known (second); the unknown is theoretical, and the known is evident (three); the link between the evident and the theoretical is the link of the impeccable; that is, the way is open but the wayfarer, i.e. at times the scientist is mistaken and at times he reaches the destination. The statement «للمصیب أجران و للمخطیء أجرٌ واحد» (for the right, there are two rewards and for the wrong there is one) has the same meaning. Knowledge and religion cannot be mistaken. It is the same in our jurisprudential issues. We should not say that if science becomes religious, taking into account that in science once the Earth was the center and now the Sun, or Ptolemaist astronomy had previously been the basis and now another theory prevails, so religion has been mistaken. No; fiqh (Islamic jurisprudent), usul (principles of jurisprudence) and tafseer (exegesis) are religious sciences in which there is no error. It is the mufassir (exegete), faqih (jurist) or usuli (legal theoretician) who is mistaken at times and right at others. He concluded that neither religion nor science is mistaken. Science means the relation between the bayyin (clarified) and the mubayyin (clarifier); i.e. between the evident and the theoretical. There is no complicated theoretical pure science unless there is a direct way to it. The direct way begins from the evident. Between the evident and the theoretical is a straight impeccable way. At times, the wayfarer makes a mistake and at others not. Science and religion makes no mistake; creation makes no mistake; «مَا تَرَی فِی خَلْقِ الرَّحْمنِ مِن تَفَاوُتٍ.» (You see no incongruity in the creation of the Beneficent God). Hence, we should bear in mind that (first) there is no non-religious science; (second) that which is being taught in universities is an interpretation of the creation and not an explanation of the nature; (third) science never makes a mistake; (fourth) the scientist is mistaken at times and right at others. If however, the scientist works methodologically and makes his best effort, he can reach the destination and is awarded twice. But, if he works with no methodology and issues judgments without passing the necessary stages, he will be mistaken and will receive the Divine punishment; (fifth) Reason is the Divine light and no one is allowed to say I discovered something on my own; (sixth) to find the answer to the question of “who is Man”? and “what is our share”? We should look at the final verses of Surah al-Qiyamah (The Resurrection) in the Holy Quran: «أَلَمْ یک نُطْفَةً مِن مَنی یمْنَی» (Had he not been a sperm from semen emitted?); such is Man. To know Man, you should look at Surah al-Nahl which says:  «وَ اللَّهُ أَخْرَجَکم مِّن بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِکمْ لاَتَعْلَمُونَ شَیئاً» (And Allah has brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers-- you did not know anything). To know Man, consider the old age and enfeeblement when Man says “I have forgotten all I have read”. A healthy old Man, be him a scholar or a university professor, cannot read a simple line in his language. Such is Man. Science is light. Yes; but these are sciences which «عَلَّمَ الْإِنسَانَ مَا لَمْ یعْلَمْ» (Taught man what he knew not.); «عَلَّمَکمْ مَا لَمْ تَکونُوا تَعْلَمُونَ» (He has taught you what you did not know.); and « یعَلِّمُهُمُ الْکتَابَ وَ الْحِکمَةَ » (and teaching them the Book and the wisdom).  

Therefore, all that is understood by Man, if there is any understanding, is because of the light of the knowledge Allah lit in him; both in “to be” and in “not to be” which relates to theoretical wisdom, and in the “ought” and “ought not” which relates to practical wisdom and ethics. He bestowed upon us such an understanding and such an asset and we should make the best use of this asset and bear in mind that each of us are interpreting a part of Divine acts. One who says God exists, his knowledge is religious. As for one who says God has attributes of perfection, he, too, possesses a religious knowledge; one who says His attributes are all the same has a religious knowledge; one who says that the obligatory attributes are the same as the obligatory Essence, also has a religious knowledge; one who says the Universe is God’s action speaks of a religious knowledge; one who provides interpretation of the actions of God is religious; whether in confirmation or in rejection, we have no non-religious science and knowledge. Then such a professor goes in his classes with wudu (partial ablution) and realizes that a deposit has been added to another deposit. That is, knowledge and the known have been granted to him by Another. Such a triangle is for Him. The known is God’s action; the knower is God’s action; the knowledge, which makes the knower to know the known and clarifies the known to the knower, is God’s action; such a Man is embraced by God’s action just as a fish swims in water and yet seeks for water! You are swimming in water; we are swimming in deeds of God and His bounty. Is it possible for Man not to know His signs? If yes, what remains would be out of the scope of the known, out of the scope of knowledge and outside the knower. There will remain a corpse; such is us. If knowledge, the knower and the known are three deeds of God, then there will remain no science which is non-religious.

The above was discussions on civilizing, which were clarified. Now it is time for religiousness. We have two things to do: one is scientific discussions; that there is a relation between subject and predicate. You have most probably heard that proposition is idiomatically called aqd (literally: knot; contract). Why aqd? Because there is a knot (link) between subject and predicate. In Persian language, the link is «است»  (ast: is). In Arabic, it is «هو» (is); when we say «زیدٌ هو قائم» (Zayd is standing), the «هو» is the knot between the subject and the predicate. When in Persian, we say « زید ایستاده است » (Zayd is standing), «است» is a knot which links the subject to the predicate; such a knot is called aqd, and therefore proposition is called aqd. The problem, however, is not for our science to become Islamic. From now on it will become clear that the knower, too, should be Islamic. Aqd is for the proposition and the science and knowledge. Aqidah (belief) is that we knot the essence of this proposition to our souls and become mu’taqid (believer); that we believe in the fact that the universe is God’s action and that we are acquiring God’s action. We will die, but we will not decay and will not mortify; only we shed skin. Death, therefore, is the beginning of our life. Our civilization lies in our religiousness, which was the beginning of our discussion. It is when we knot to our body the essence of what is proved by science, i.e. what has become aqd and knotted between the subject and the predicate, and then we will become mu’taqid (believer), and such will be aqidah (belief). When we knot it to our soul, it goes to the part of “ought” and “ought not”, and from there it goes to “actions” and is no more knowledge. Such an acknowledgment is not knowledge but faith. It is action and deed. But why do some of us know yet fail to act? The secret is that the center for decision and action is totally separate from the center for knowledge. We have Men possessed of knowledge yet who fail to take action, both in seminaries and universities; why? Because the task of understanding is with science and knowledge, but that of decision making is with practical wisdom.

The great master posed a question as “why are there Men possessed of knowledge who fail to take action”, and replied:

Why do we have Men possessed of knowledge who fail to take action? How is it possible for one to read the verse «قُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنِینَ یغُضُّوا مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِمْ» (Say to the believing men that they cast down their looks) and teach it in the class and then refrain from looking at non-mahrams. While we know that it is religiously unlawful to be «أَکالُونَ لِلسُّحْتِ» (devourers of what is forbidden), and that bribery is forbidden, why being dirty-handed at times? It is not true that all Men possessed of knowledge are Men of deeds and action. There are instances both in seminaries and in universities. How is for Man with all his knowledge to fail to take action? Still, you may see many people and read for them the very same thing and the very verse; and yet they do not abandon their errors. Such a Man has no problem in his knowledge, he has even taught such words. The problem lies somewhere else. The “somewhere” has to be known (first), and cured (second). To know One who carries out acts of decision making, controlling, management, handling and performing, such a One has to be known separately. Before we come to know Him separately, let us give an example in the outer space so that to clarify a bit until we reach the inner space wherein we will see how some people, both in seminaries and universities, can be possessed of knowledge yet fail to act accordingly.

In the space outside us, certain forces undertake the act of perception; such are the eyes and the ears. No one expects the eyes to run; they are expected to see and perceive. Ears are not expected to attract and repel; they are to hear and perceive. Such perceptions are for hearing and listening. But running and jumping are for hands and feet. So, from the outer perspective, there are a set of forces which perceive and a set of forces which take action. A group of them become percipient and another moving agent. Man is of four types by the outer forces: some are with stronger perception; i.e. their sense of vision and hearing is sharp; they see well and hear well; their hands and feet are also healthy. When they see snakes and scorpions, they perceive well and escape. These are men possessed of knowledge and action both; that is to say, their practical element works well and their feet are not crippled.

The second group is those whose perception is sharp yet whose hands and feet are crippled. They see snakes and scorpions yet they do not move. Even if they are poisoned, if they are asked whether or not they have seen the snake or the scorpion?! They will reply: yes, we did. Eyes and ears cannot escape, can they? Right, they had seen them completely, yet that part which has to move and help them escape is disabled. Now it becomes clear what is wrong in a man possessed of knowledge without action.

The third group is those whose hands and feet are free yet whose eyes and ears are closed; such are the ignorant people who can run well but don’t know where to go. They can make the proper use of their heads, but they don’t know how to use it. Such an individual has strong hands and feet and head, yet cannot understand how and where to use them.

The third group is those whose eyes and ears are closed and whose hands and feet are crippled as well. The above were the four physical-perception types. Let us go to the tenor of the debate and the true content of our simile. Within us there are a set of forces relating to perception and comprehension known as theoretical wisdom. Intellect, doing research, imagination and confirmation are for this purpose. There are a set of forces which are totally separate from the part of cognition and which control the motivations. These are administrators of motivations; they possess wills, sincerity, intention, decision, ruling and command. These are at two completely separate levels. A person the two parts of whom are strong, i.e. one who perceives well and decides well will be a just knower. Second is one whose knowledge base is strong, one who teaches, delivers lectures, but in practice there is no difference for him what to do, and whether to receive bribery for instance or not; such a one is paralyzed in his practical wisdom whereby he is to make his will and take a decision. No need to recite for him verses of the Quran; he has no problem with verses and has no theoretical deficiencies. He is similar to an individual who has healthy eyes and ears but who cannot move as a result of his crippled feet. If he is repeatedly asked whether or not he had seen the snake coming toward him, he would reply: yes, I did. He did see the snake but eyes cannot escape. Such a knowledge knower or such a clergy has crippled hands and feet. When Imam Ali (peace be upon him) said in his illuminating words «کم من عقلٍ اسیرٍ تحت هوی امیر» (Many a wisdom captive under the command of caprice). He meant that in the battlefield of the Greater Jihad (jihad with the lower self), the decision center is made captive. Satan captures the center for their volition, management and decision making and fastens them with chain.

The third group is those whose hearts’ hands and feet are free, those who can act well; they are also free to will, but they don’t know what they are doing; such are the holy fools. May God bless our master the Late scholar Allameh Tabataba’i. He used to quote a narration as follows: before Aqa Sheikh Abass wrote Mafatih al-Jinan (The Keys to the Gardens of Paradise), Zad al-Ma’ad (Provisions of the Hereafter) of Marhum Majlisi (May God bless him) was popular. Majlisi’s Zad al-Ma’ad includes religious acts and ceremonies for twelve months of the year. According to him, some holy fools would rehearse a complete recital of Zad al-Ma’ad during the holy month of Ramadan. They thought the book was like the Quran. Zad al-Ma’ad is on the acts specific to special times all throught the year and is not for the month of Ramadan alone. Such a one does not know and does not understand what he should do; he is, thus, active, yet of little understanding.

The fourth group is the profligate ignorant who cannot distinguish what to do and in case he understands, he does not intend to act upon it. We ourselves, and our dear students, who are the Divine deposits with us, should draw boundaries and implement, every day and night, the reviewing and self assessment that we have been advised. Well, only a few days are we here in this world and we will depart then. There is something serious and that is we will witness all our deeds on that instance. As narrated in Nahjul Balagha, Imam Ali (peace be upon him) would advise, in a sentence, those who had established the Isha’ prayer; it was not a piece of advice to say once or twice a week; he would say every night that «تَجهّزوا رحمکم الله» (Take your necessary supplies, my God bless you). There are some words which in case said once or twice, their repetition would prove monotonous. But Imam would advise after the prayer to «تَجهّزوا رحمکم الله», to take their provisions for the Journey. Such a spirit will make one neither to go astray nor to hinder the path of others. Islamic science will become as such. The universe will then become the creation of God and the Divine creature; knowledge and the known, too, will become Divine creations. To such a university and such students, gender segregation is not a command. Gender segregation will naturally be observed. Are seminary students asked to observe this rule? Naturally they do observe it spontaneously. Such knowledge will be naturally accompanied by the congregation prayer. It will be followed by performing prayer early in its time; it will follow permanent wudu. Most seminary students have permanent wudu; they establish prayer early in its time, and take care of their ears and eyes. Universities, then, will be the same. No one will advise any more as every moment he is speaking with the action of God and is witnessing His signs. He can see that God, glory be to Him, says we have created the Milky Ways from some smoke. There is a «لاتنقض الیقین بالشک» (Break not the certainty with doubt), for which the scholars of Usul have written some fifty or sixty volumes of commentaries. The verses which relate to the creation of the heavens and the earth are tens of times longer than this sentence. Thus, you my dear fellow citizen, you who are from a land which belongs to and loves Imam Ali (peace be upon him), you should know what’s due and we should know what’s right and acknowledge our predecessors. Islam was sent to other cities too, but was repelled. Our predecessors, however, sent their envoys to invite them and hence the holy deputies of Imams went to Tabarestan and Mazandaran from the city of Rey and from elsewhere. Can Tabarestan be conquered? It is full of valleys and fissures and trenches. Who can conquer it? It was conquered only by religion. Tabarestan was not capable of being conquered. They, themselves, sent envoys and asked for it; they invited the deputy of Imam there. I don’t want to name any but in some provinces when we went to visit the shrines of the martyrs, we thought we could also go to the shrine of Imams’ descendents, but we were told that there were none in that city. As for those of the noble descendents of Imams, however, who moved to Tabarestan, you can see every here and there in this city there are a number of their shrines. It was Imams’ descendents who moved there and introduced Ahlul-Bayt and the Quran; they said what Ali, Fatimah, Hassan and Hussain (peace be upon them all) said. They were those who made our ancestors Shia. Here, the Generous Lady of Ahlul-Bayt, Lady Masumah (peace be upon her) is of a special position. Such descendents of Imams are different from Sheikh Mofid and Sheikh Tusi; they are the munificent who have the right to codify. When we enter their shrine, and kiss the doors and walls, it is because they made us humans. They came here and made us people of Ghadir, and saved us from Saqifah. Our ancestors had such a distinction and such spirituality. They could discern the very fact that there is the need to invite them to their land, and thus they sent their envoys to do as such. In the city of Sari, when the name of Ali (peace be upon him) was called, other people were called to listen and remain silent. Such was Sari one thousand years ago. When God says in His Holy Book «وَ إِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْآنُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ وَ أَنْصِتُوا» (And when the Quran is recited, then listen to it and remain silent). In this city, Mazandaran, when the speaker would say Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him) said so, people would invite others to silence so that they could listen what the speaker was saying. Such were our ancestors; « کَفی بِذلکَ فَخراً » (Sufficient is such a pride). The words of Ali ibn Abi Talib were welcomed the same way as was the Holy Quran. You my dears have had and still have many scholars; you’ve had and you’re having many seminaries. Universities in your city should be really exemplary. God willing, be good guardians of Islamic sciences. Let your civilization be your very religiousness, so that you can transfer the land of Alavis healthily, similar to the whole system, to Imam of Time (May God hasten his return) so that you be subject to his dhakiya du’as and prayers for you.

 

 

 

 

 



Related News:
“It is very important to have better ties with the universities of the world of Islam.”