Every now and again, the topic of “reform” within the Hawza, for some peculiar reason, finds its way to social media. Sometimes it is raised by students and other times by outsiders, who can make bold allegations without having the smallest of interactions with the Hawza. I don’t know what the intentions of these individuals are, but I will assume they are not ill. Nonetheless, I have two observations to add. Before that though, let me make two introductory points:
Firstly: The Hawza, like every other educational institution, presents to its students and members a unique set of opportunities for personal growth and learning, as well as a series of difficulties and problems that could hinder that process and could be done without. Essentially, wherever there are humans, problems, mismanagements, conflicts and inefficiencies will naturally rise.
These issues are not secret nor kept within the tight circles of seminarians themselves. The most basic of students and the most elite of scholars and marājiʿ are aware of them. Whoever tries to sell you the idea that they are “exposing” group secrets or they are extremely “brave” to come out and talk about these problems; tell them to relax bro, have a cup of tea and just sit down.
Secondly: Everyone’s experience at the Hawza is unique in its own way. I do not invalidate the negative and troubling experiences some students have undergone. Each case has to be studied in its own right. Factors leading to that suboptimal experience should be assessed appropriately — some tracing back to the individuals themselves, and some to the system or individuals that identify with it — and solutions have to be provided.
Having clarified these points, my observations are about the fairness of these public portrayals and the effectiveness of them.
First: Unfairness
Individuals who take it upon themselves to bring these issues to public attention, should not present a skewed and biased picture. Unfortunately, however, this is exactly what is observed with some of these attempts. They paint a very bleak picture of the Hawza. You begin to think nothing good ever comes out of there. And if it does, it’s not because of the system but because of opposition to it. If the Hawza has produced the likes of Shaykh al Ansari, Shahid Sadr, Imam Khomeini, Sayyid Khoei, Ayatullah Sistani, Allamah Hilli, Muqqadas Ardabili, Akhund al Khurasani and many other to name; somehow, it’s not because the system has been doing something right, but because these individuals have rebelled against it. Every good that happens, is put to the account of rejecting the system and any wrong to the system itself.
This is where your nonsense-detection antennas should wiggle and your suspicion should rise. These representations are simply one-sided, patently unfair and factually untrue. Shortcomings does not mean the entire system is failing and chaotic. Personal negative experiences should not be a catalyst for categorically dismissing the tremendous output of good and ignoring the dominantly outweighing positives in their entirety.
If individuals rise to the top, like our elite scholars, it is not because they are “rebels” or have rejected the system. No. It is because they dedicate themselves to the most fundamental practices and truths of that system. They are not rebels; they are the fruits of this system. They understand that growth is non-negotiable. So they leverage their influence, their success and their knowledge gained over the years of following the teachings and fundamentals of that system to help it take another leap into the future. Just like any other field, be it knowledge-based, sports or business; they realized bolstering themselves and the system into greater horizons first requires standing upon the shoulders of giants: to be effective students of the past greats before they can be teachers of tomorrow.
Second: Effectiveness
Most puzzling to me is: what does this type of social media awareness achieve? If your intention is to help the Hawza grow and alleviate its problems, how does informing non-seminarians help achieve that cause? Isn’t the effect the opposite? When an individual presents his biased judgement to an audience who can neither deny or affirm these allegations due to their lack of experience and interaction, does this not lead to questioning the entire entity and all of its achievements? How does discussing these issues with Muslims living in the west, dealing with their own seriously challenging set of problems, help the situation if not worsen it?
There are times where sharing some of these issues with those outside the Hawza can be helpful. As an example, consider the fact that the quality of the graduates of the hawza is also dependent on the quality of the applicants. As a community, are we encouraging intelligent, dedicated and pious individuals to join and become potential leaders of tomorrow? Or are we only sending…I won’t elaborate. The point is: if sharing this information can inform the community about their responsibility and they can take a step in helping, then that is praiseworthy. In general terms, if this awareness follows a call to action that creates responsibility, togetherness, trust and positive change for everyone, then great! However, for the most part, this does not seem to be the case. And thus some taqwā on the part of the speaker is more befitting.
In short, the appropriate measure for those with genuine concern for the religion and the Hawza seems to involve discussing these issues proactively and persistently with those who can make a difference instead of ranting, for the sake of ranting and looking revolutionary and popular. This is not only true for Hawza, but any institution one is actively involved with. Changes won’t happen overnight either. If you are serious and genuinely concerned, then be ready for the long road of action instead of the easy emotional vents and personal rants that achieve nothing but misinformation and mistrust.
May Allah protect us all from the misjudgments of our limited minds.
